critical review of literature review

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods?
• Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

What is the purpose of literature review , a. habitat loss and species extinction: , b. range shifts and phenological changes: , c. ocean acidification and coral reefs: , d. adaptive strategies and conservation efforts: .

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field.

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example 

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!

How to write a good literature review 

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Write and Cite as yo u go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free!

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review 

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:  

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:  

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research | Cite” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 

• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references in 10,000+ styles into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

The grassroots organizations continuing the fight for Ukrainian science

Career Feature 11 SEP 24

How a struggling biotech company became a university ‘spin-in’

Career Q&A 10 SEP 24

The human costs of the research-assessment culture

Career Feature 09 SEP 24

Why I’m committed to breaking the bias in large language models

Career Guide 04 SEP 24

Binning out-of-date chemicals? Somebody think about the carbon!

Correspondence 27 AUG 24

Publishing nightmare: a researcher’s quest to keep his own work from being plagiarized

News 04 SEP 24

Intellectual property and data privacy: the hidden risks of AI

PhD and MSc position at the Faculty of Biology in the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology

Join the Faculty of Biology at the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology The Technion, located in Haifa, Israel, is a world-renowned institutio...

Israel (IL)

Faculty of Biology, Technion

Call for Participation at Forum of Young Scientists Shenzhen University of Advanced Technology

Shenzhen University of Advanced Technology (SUAT) invites interested individuals to its Forum of Young Scientists.

Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Shenzhen University of Advanced Technology

2024 Recruitment notice Shenzhen Institute of Synthetic Biology: Shenzhen, China

The wide-ranging expertise drawing from technical, engineering or science professions...

Shenzhen,China

Shenzhen Institute of Synthetic Biology

Chief Operating Officer

Salary: £425,000 per annumContract: PermanentClosing date: Sunday 22nd September Founded in 1936, Wellcome is a politically and financially independen

England, London

WellcomeTrust

Executive Director, Discovery

Salary: £400,000 per annumContract: PermanentClosing date: Sunday 22nd September Founded in 1936, Wellcome is a politically and financially independe

London, England

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

The Sheridan Libraries

• Write a Literature Review
• Sheridan Libraries
• Evaluate This link opens in a new window

What Will You Do Differently?

Please help your librarians by filling out this two-minute survey of today's class session..

Professor, this one's for you .

Introduction

Literature reviews take time. here is some general information to know before you start.  .

•  VIDEO -- This video is a great overview of the entire process.  (2020; North Carolina State University Libraries) --The transcript is included --This is for everyone; ignore the mention of "graduate students" --9.5 minutes, and every second is important  
• OVERVIEW -- Read this page from Purdue's OWL. It's not long, and gives some tips to fill in what you just learned from the video.  
• NOT A RESEARCH ARTICLE -- A literature review follows a different style, format, and structure from a research article.  

• Next: Evaluate >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

• Translation

Difference between a Literature Review and a Critical Review

By charlesworth author services.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 08 October, 2021

As you read research papers, you may notice that there are two very different kinds of review of prior studies. Sometimes, this section of a paper is called a literature review, and at other times, it is referred to as a critical review or a critical context . These differences may be more commonly seen across different fields. Although both these sections are about reviewing prior and existing studies, this article aims to clarify the differences between the two.

Literature review

A literature review is a summary of prior or existing studies that are related to your own research paper . A literature review can be a part of a research paper or can form a paper in itself . For the former, the literature review is designed as a basis upon which your own current study is designed and built. The latter forms a synthesis of prior studies and is a way to highlight future research agendas or a framework.

Writing a literature review

In a literature review, you should attempt to discuss the arguments and findings in prior studies and then work to build on these studies as you develop your own research. You can also highlight the connection between existing and prior literature to demonstrate how the current study you are presenting can advance your knowledge in the field .

When performing a literature review, you should aim to summarise your discussions using a specific aspect of the literature, such as by topic, time, methodology/ design and findings . By doing so, you should be able to establish an effective way to present the relevant literature and demonstrate the connection between prior studies and your research.

Do note that a literature review does not include a presentation or discussion of any results or findings – this should come at a later point in the paper or study. You should also not impose your subjective viewpoints or opinions on the literature you discuss. 

Critical review

A critical review is also a popular way of reviewing prior and existing studies. It can cover and discuss the main ideas or arguments in a book or an article, or it can review a specific concept, theme, theoretical perspective or key construct found in the existing literature .

However, the key feature that distinguishes a critical review from a literature review is that the former is more than just a summary of different topics or methodologies. It offers more of a reflection and critique of the concept in question, and is engaged by authors to more clearly contextualise their own research within the existing literature and to present their opinions, perspectives and approaches .

Given that a critical review is not just a summary of prior literature, it is generally not considered acceptable to follow the same strategy as for a literature review. Instead, aim to organise and structure your critical review in a way that would enable you to discuss the key concepts, assert your perspectives and locate your arguments and research within the existing body of work. 

Structuring a critical review

A critical review would generally begin with an introduction to the concepts you would like to discuss. Depending on how broad the topics are, this can simply be a brief overview or it could set up a more complex framework. The discussion that follows through the rest of the review will then address and discuss your chosen themes or topics in more depth. 

Writing a critical review

The discussion within a critical review will not only present and summarise themes but also critically engage with the varying arguments, writings and perspectives within those themes. One important thing to note is that, similar to a literature review , you should keep your personal opinions, likes and dislikes out of a review. Whether you personally agree with a study or argument – and whether you like it or not – is immaterial. Instead, you should focus upon the effectiveness and relevance of the arguments , considering such elements as the evidence provided, the interpretations and analysis of the data, whether or not a study may be biased in any way, what further questions or problems it raises or what outstanding gaps and issues need to be addressed.

In conclusion

Although a review of previous and existing literature can be performed and presented in different ways, in essence, any literature or critical review requires a solid understanding of the most prominent work in the field as it relates to your own study. Such an understanding is crucial and significant for you to build upon and synthesise the existing knowledge, and to create and contribute new knowledge to advance the field .

Read previous (fourth) in series: How to refer to other studies or literature in the different sections of a research paper

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services .

Charlesworth Author Services, a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928. 

To know more about our services, visit:  Our Services

Share with your colleagues

Scientific Editing Services

Sign up – stay updated.

We use cookies to offer you a personalized experience. By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

How to Write Critical Reviews

When you are asked to write a critical review of a book or article, you will need to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. In other words, you will be examining another person’s thoughts on a topic from your point of view.

Your stand must go beyond your “gut reaction” to the work and be based on your knowledge (readings, lecture, experience) of the topic as well as on factors such as criteria stated in your assignment or discussed by you and your instructor.

Make your stand clear at the beginning of your review, in your evaluations of specific parts, and in your concluding commentary.

Remember that your goal should be to make a few key points about the book or article, not to discuss everything the author writes.

Understanding the Assignment

To write a good critical review, you will have to engage in the mental processes of analyzing (taking apart) the work–deciding what its major components are and determining how these parts (i.e., paragraphs, sections, or chapters) contribute to the work as a whole.

Analyzing the work will help you focus on how and why the author makes certain points and prevent you from merely summarizing what the author says. Assuming the role of an analytical reader will also help you to determine whether or not the author fulfills the stated purpose of the book or article and enhances your understanding or knowledge of a particular topic.

Be sure to read your assignment thoroughly before you read the article or book. Your instructor may have included specific guidelines for you to follow. Keeping these guidelines in mind as you read the article or book can really help you write your paper!

Also, note where the work connects with what you’ve studied in the course. You can make the most efficient use of your reading and notetaking time if you are an active reader; that is, keep relevant questions in mind and jot down page numbers as well as your responses to ideas that appear to be significant as you read.

Please note: The length of your introduction and overview, the number of points you choose to review, and the length of your conclusion should be proportionate to the page limit stated in your assignment and should reflect the complexity of the material being reviewed as well as the expectations of your reader.

Write the introduction

Below are a few guidelines to help you write the introduction to your critical review.

Introduce your review appropriately

Begin your review with an introduction appropriate to your assignment.

If your assignment asks you to review only one book and not to use outside sources, your introduction will focus on identifying the author, the title, the main topic or issue presented in the book, and the author’s purpose in writing the book.

If your assignment asks you to review the book as it relates to issues or themes discussed in the course, or to review two or more books on the same topic, your introduction must also encompass those expectations.

Explain relationships

For example, before you can review two books on a topic, you must explain to your reader in your introduction how they are related to one another.

Within this shared context (or under this “umbrella”) you can then review comparable aspects of both books, pointing out where the authors agree and differ.

In other words, the more complicated your assignment is, the more your introduction must accomplish.

Finally, the introduction to a book review is always the place for you to establish your position as the reviewer (your thesis about the author’s thesis).

As you write, consider the following questions:

• Is the book a memoir, a treatise, a collection of facts, an extended argument, etc.? Is the article a documentary, a write-up of primary research, a position paper, etc.?
• Who is the author? What does the preface or foreword tell you about the author’s purpose, background, and credentials? What is the author’s approach to the topic (as a journalist? a historian? a researcher?)?
• What is the main topic or problem addressed? How does the work relate to a discipline, to a profession, to a particular audience, or to other works on the topic?
• What is your critical evaluation of the work (your thesis)? Why have you taken that position? What criteria are you basing your position on?

Provide an overview

In your introduction, you will also want to provide an overview. An overview supplies your reader with certain general information not appropriate for including in the introduction but necessary to understanding the body of the review.

Generally, an overview describes your book’s division into chapters, sections, or points of discussion. An overview may also include background information about the topic, about your stand, or about the criteria you will use for evaluation.

The overview and the introduction work together to provide a comprehensive beginning for (a “springboard” into) your review.

• What are the author’s basic premises? What issues are raised, or what themes emerge? What situation (i.e., racism on college campuses) provides a basis for the author’s assertions?
• How informed is my reader? What background information is relevant to the entire book and should be placed here rather than in a body paragraph?

Write the body

The body is the center of your paper, where you draw out your main arguments. Below are some guidelines to help you write it.

Organize using a logical plan

Organize the body of your review according to a logical plan. Here are two options:

• First, summarize, in a series of paragraphs, those major points from the book that you plan to discuss; incorporating each major point into a topic sentence for a paragraph is an effective organizational strategy. Second, discuss and evaluate these points in a following group of paragraphs. (There are two dangers lurking in this pattern–you may allot too many paragraphs to summary and too few to evaluation, or you may re-summarize too many points from the book in your evaluation section.)
• Alternatively, you can summarize and evaluate the major points you have chosen from the book in a point-by-point schema. That means you will discuss and evaluate point one within the same paragraph (or in several if the point is significant and warrants extended discussion) before you summarize and evaluate point two, point three, etc., moving in a logical sequence from point to point to point. Here again, it is effective to use the topic sentence of each paragraph to identify the point from the book that you plan to summarize or evaluate.

Questions to keep in mind as you write

With either organizational pattern, consider the following questions:

• What are the author’s most important points? How do these relate to one another? (Make relationships clear by using transitions: “In contrast,” an equally strong argument,” “moreover,” “a final conclusion,” etc.).
• What types of evidence or information does the author present to support his or her points? Is this evidence convincing, controversial, factual, one-sided, etc.? (Consider the use of primary historical material, case studies, narratives, recent scientific findings, statistics.)
• Where does the author do a good job of conveying factual material as well as personal perspective? Where does the author fail to do so? If solutions to a problem are offered, are they believable, misguided, or promising?
• Which parts of the work (particular arguments, descriptions, chapters, etc.) are most effective and which parts are least effective? Why?
• Where (if at all) does the author convey personal prejudice, support illogical relationships, or present evidence out of its appropriate context?

Keep your opinions distinct and cite your sources

Remember, as you discuss the author’s major points, be sure to distinguish consistently between the author’s opinions and your own.

Keep the summary portions of your discussion concise, remembering that your task as a reviewer is to re-see the author’s work, not to re-tell it.

And, importantly, if you refer to ideas from other books and articles or from lecture and course materials, always document your sources, or else you might wander into the realm of plagiarism.

Include only that material which has relevance for your review and use direct quotations sparingly. The Writing Center has other handouts to help you paraphrase text and introduce quotations.

Write the conclusion

You will want to use the conclusion to state your overall critical evaluation.

You have already discussed the major points the author makes, examined how the author supports arguments, and evaluated the quality or effectiveness of specific aspects of the book or article.

Now you must make an evaluation of the work as a whole, determining such things as whether or not the author achieves the stated or implied purpose and if the work makes a significant contribution to an existing body of knowledge.

Consider the following questions:

• Is the work appropriately subjective or objective according to the author’s purpose?
• How well does the work maintain its stated or implied focus? Does the author present extraneous material? Does the author exclude or ignore relevant information?
• How well has the author achieved the overall purpose of the book or article? What contribution does the work make to an existing body of knowledge or to a specific group of readers? Can you justify the use of this work in a particular course?
• What is the most important final comment you wish to make about the book or article? Do you have any suggestions for the direction of future research in the area? What has reading this work done for you or demonstrated to you?

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

• Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
• Guided brainstorming exercises
• Get more help with your essay
• Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

Which review is that? A guide to review types

• Which review is that?
• Review Comparison Chart
• Decision Tool

Critical Review

• Integrative Review
• Narrative Review
• State of the Art Review
• Narrative Summary
• Systematic Review
• Meta-analysis
• Comparative Effectiveness Review
• Diagnostic Systematic Review
• Network Meta-analysis
• Prognostic Review
• Psychometric Review
• Review of Economic Evaluations
• Systematic Review of Epidemiology Studies
• Living Systematic Reviews
• Umbrella Review
• Review of Reviews
• Rapid Review
• Rapid Evidence Assessment
• Rapid Realist Review
• Qualitative Evidence Synthesis
• Qualitative Interpretive Meta-synthesis
• Qualitative Meta-synthesis
• Qualitative Research Synthesis
• Framework Synthesis - Best-fit Framework Synthesis
• Meta-aggregation
• Meta-ethnography
• Meta-interpretation
• Meta-narrative Review
• Meta-summary
• Thematic Synthesis
• Mixed Methods Synthesis
• Narrative Synthesis
• Bayesian Meta-analysis
• EPPI-Centre Review
• Critical Interpretive Synthesis
• Realist Synthesis - Realist Review
• Scoping Review
• Mapping Review
• Systematised Review
• Concept Synthesis
• Expert Opinion - Policy Review
• Technology Assessment Review
• Methodological Review
• Systematic Search and Review

"A critical review aims to demonstrate that the writer has extensively researched the literature and critically evaluated its quality. It goes beyond mere description of identified articles and includes a degree of analysis and conceptual innovation" and "an effective critical review presents, analyses and synthesizes material from diverse sources". "There is no formal requirement to present methods of the search, synthesis and analysis explicitly" (Grant & Booth 2009).

Further Reading/Resources  

Cooper, Harris M & Cooper, Harris M. Synthesizing research (2017). Research synthesis and meta-analysis : a step-by-step approach (Fifth edition). SAGE Publications, Los Angeles Catalogue Link  

Renate Kahlke , Mark Lee , Kevin W. Eva; Building Blocks for Critical Reviews in Health Professions Education. J Grad Med Educ 1 April 2023; 15 (2): 186–189. doi: https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-23-00155.1

Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.  Full text

Younas, A., & Maddigan, J. (2019). Proposing a policy framework for nursing education for fostering compassion in nursing students: A critical review.  Journal of advanced nursing ,  75 (8), 1621–1636. Full Text Rew, L., Young, C. C., Monge, M., & Bogucka, R. (2021). Review: Puberty blockers for transgender and gender diverse youth-a critical review of the literature.  Child and adolescent mental health ,  26 (1), 3–14. Full Text  

References Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information & libraries journal , 26 (2), 91-108. Full Text

• << Previous: Traditional review family
• Next: Integrative Review >>
• Last Updated: Aug 19, 2024 1:08 PM
• URL: https://unimelb.libguides.com/whichreview

Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• Steps for Creating a Literature Review
• Providing Evidence / Critical Analysis
• Challenges when writing a Literature Review
• Systematic Literature Reviews

Developing a Literature Review

1. Purpose and Scope

To help you develop a literature review, gather information on existing research, sub-topics, relevant research, and overlaps. Note initial thoughts on the topic - a mind map or list might be helpful - and avoid unfocused reading, collecting irrelevant content.  A literature review serves to place your research within the context of existing knowledge. It demonstrates your understanding of the field and identifies gaps that your research aims to fill. This helps in justifying the relevance and necessity of your study.

To avoid over-reading, set a target word count for each section and limit reading time. Plan backwards from the deadline and move on to other parts of the investigation. Read major texts and explore up-to-date research. Check reference lists and citation indexes for common standard texts. Be guided by research questions and refocus on your topic when needed. Stop reading if you find similar viewpoints or if you're going off topic.

You can use a "Synthesis Matrix" to keep track of your reading notes. This concept map helps you to provide a summary of the literature and its connections is produced as a result of this study. Utilizing referencing software like RefWorks to obtain citations, you can construct the framework for composing your literature evaluation.

2. Source Selection

Focus on searching for academically authoritative texts such as academic books, journals, research reports, and government publications. These sources are critical for ensuring the credibility and reliability of your review. 

• Academic Books: Provide comprehensive coverage of a topic.
• Journal Articles: Offer the most up-to-date research and are essential for a literature review.
• Research Reports: Detailed accounts of specific research projects.
• Government Publications: Official documents that provide reliable data and insights.

3. Thematic Analysis

Instead of merely summarizing sources, identify and discuss key themes that emerge from the literature. This involves interpreting and evaluating how different authors have tackled similar issues and how their findings relate to your research.

4. Critical Evaluation

Adopt a critical attitude towards the sources you review. Scrutinize, question, and dissect the material to ensure that your review is not just descriptive but analytical. This helps in highlighting the significance of various sources and their relevance to your research.

Each work's critical assessment should take into account:

Provenance:  What qualifications does the author have? Are the author's claims backed up by proof, such as first-hand accounts from history, case studies, stories, statistics, and current scientific discoveries? Methodology:  Were the strategies employed to locate, collect, and evaluate the data suitable for tackling the study question? Was the sample size suitable? Were the findings properly reported and interpreted? Objectivity : Is the author's viewpoint impartial or biased? Does the author's thesis get supported by evidence that refutes it, or does it ignore certain important facts? Persuasiveness:  Which of the author's arguments is the strongest or weakest in terms of persuasiveness? Value:  Are the author's claims and deductions believable? Does the study ultimately advance our understanding of the issue in any meaningful way?

5. Categorization

Organize your literature review by grouping sources into categories based on themes, relevance to research questions, theoretical paradigms, or chronology. This helps in presenting your findings in a structured manner.

6. Source Validity

Ensure that the sources you include are valid and reliable. Classic texts may retain their authority over time, but for fields that evolve rapidly, prioritize the most recent research. Always check the credibility of the authors and the impact of their work in the field.

7. Synthesis and Findings

Synthesize the information from various sources to draw conclusions about the current state of knowledge. Identify trends, controversies, and gaps in the literature. Relate your findings to your research questions and suggest future directions for research.

Practical Tips

• Use a variety of sources, including online databases, university libraries, and reference lists from relevant articles. This ensures a comprehensive coverage of the literature.
• Avoid listing sources without analysis. Use tables, bulk citations, and footnotes to manage references efficiently and make your review more readable.
• Writing a literature review is an ongoing process. Start writing early and revise as you read more. This iterative process helps in refining your arguments and identifying additional sources as needed.  

Brown University Library (2024) Organizing and Creating Information. Available at: https://libguides.brown.edu/organize/litreview (Accessed: 30 July 2024).

Pacheco-Vega, R. (2016) Synthesizing different bodies of work in your literature review: The Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump (CSED) technique . Available at: http://www.raulpacheco.org/2016/06/synthesizing-different-bodies-of-work-in-your-literature-review-the-conceptual-synthesis-excel-dump-technique/ (Accessed: 30 July 2024).

Study Advice at the University of Reading (2024) Literature reviews . Available at: https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/literaturereview/developing (Accessed: 31 July 2024).

Further Reading

Frameworks for creating answerable (re)search questions  How to Guide

Literature Searching How to Guide

• << Previous: Steps for Creating a Literature Review
• Next: Providing Evidence / Critical Analysis >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 11:43 AM
• URL: https://library.lsbu.ac.uk/literaturereviews

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Biomedical Library Guides

Systematic Reviews

• Types of Literature Reviews

What Makes a Systematic Review Different from Other Types of Reviews?

• Planning Your Systematic Review
• Database Searching
• Creating the Search
• Search Filters and Hedges
• Grey Literature
• Managing and Appraising Results
• Further Resources

Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Planning Your Systematic Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 23, 2024 3:40 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Writing a Critical Review of Literature: A Practical Guide for English Graduate Students

Global Language Review

As an integral part of dissertations and theses, research scholars in different disciplines require to write a comprehensive chapter on &quot;literature review&quot; that establishes the conceptual and theoretical foundations of an empirical research study. This, however, poses an intellectual challenge to produce a critical review of the published research on a given topic. Therefore, this paper addresses the students problems of writing the literature review in a thesis or dissertation at the graduate and postgraduate levels. It explains the process and steps of reviewing literature for a thesis chapter. These steps include; a) critical reading and note-taking, b) writing a summary of the reviewed literature, c) organization of literature review, and d) the use of a synthesis matrix. The last part of the paper offers suggestions on how to write critically and make the researcher&#39;s voice explicit in the chapter.

Related Papers

Scientific Research Publishing: Creative Education

Dr. Qais Faryadi

Literature writing is a skill that every PhD candidate must procure to communicate his or her research findings clearly. The main objective of this paper is to facilitate the literature writing process so that PhD candidates under- stand what PhD literature is and are able to write their PhD literature cor- rectly and scientifically. The methodology used in this research is a descrip- tive method as it deliberates and defines the various parts of literature writing process and elucidates the how to do of it in a very unpretentious and under- standing language. As thus, this paper summarizes the various steps of litera- ture writing to pilot the PhD students so that the task of PhD literature writ- ing process becomes adaptable and less discouraging. This research is a useful roadmap especially for students of the social science studies. Additionally, in this paper, literature writing techniques, procedures and important strategies are enlightened in a simple manner. This paper adopts a how-to approach when discussing a variety of relevant topics, such as literature review intro- duction, types of literature review, advantages of literature reviews, objective of literature review, literature review template, and important check lists about literature review are discussed. This paper has 5 parts, such as Intro- duction, Literature Review, Methodology, Results and Conclusion. The lit- erature review chapter is discussed in this paper. I will discuss the rest as a se- ries in the future. Keywords Thesis Writing Process, Literature Review, PhD, Social Science, Research Methodology

Mohammed I S

Literature review and writing form the basis of every academic research and writing, and it is most significant and indispensable to every academic research work. Its systematic process of writing has, however, been mysterious, complex, messy and boring, especially to inexperienced researchers and postgraduate students. This study explored the mysteries and ease with academic literature, writing and review. The study used secondary source to gather data and for the analysis, and found that academic literature writing and review comprise of different patterns and systems, dependent upon the nature and character of the research, the writing in contexts and its specific objectives; there are different types of literature and writing in academics, and while no one way is universally accepted by all at the same time, different approaches are required for different types of review and writings. The difficulty in understanding, reviewing and writing of literature mainly emanates from failure right from the inception to clearly identify what precisely the reviewer wants and how to go about looking for it in a systematic and comprehensive manner. Reviewing and writing of academic literature is a herculean task and for it to be successful there must be focus, specific objectives, adequate and timely provision and access to relevant materials. With proper understanding, it can be mastered and made easy. The study is essential for academics and post graduate students who must undergo literature review and writing at varying stages, especially at critical, stipulated and limited times.

Auxiliadora Padilha

HUMANUS DISCOURSE

Humanus Discourse

The importance of literature review in academic writing of different categories, levels, and purposes cannot be overemphasized. The literature review establishes both the relevance and justifies why new research is relevant. It is through a literature review that a gap would be established, and which the new research would fix. Once the literature review sits properly in the research work, the objectives/research questions naturally fall into their proper perspective. Invariably, other chapters of the research work would be impacted as well. In most instances, scanning through literature also provides you with the need and justification for your research and may also well leave a hint for further research. Literature review in most instances exposes a researcher to the right methodology to use. The literature review is the nucleus of a research work that might when gotten right spotlights a work and can as well derail a research work when done wrongly. This paper seeks to unveil the practical guides to writing a literature review, from purpose, and components to tips. It follows through the exposition of secondary literature. It exposes the challenges in writing a literature review and at the same time recommended tips that when followed will impact the writing of the literature review.

John Schostak

The literature is a multiplicity of voices. With each voice agendas emerge. Each text is itself a framing of voices and their agendas, shaped to present a debate slanted towards a conclusion. Within that debate can often be detected the friends, the strangers, the guests, the hosts and the enemies that are entertained by the writer. So, there is a problem. It is that whilst acts of framing bring and impose order, those very processes of ordering and categorisation select and edit so that some things are chosen to be foregrounded, others to be background and yet others to be excluded. In the writing task, agenda setting and framing pin possibilities and options down to what is regarded as 'realistic', 'plausible', 'do-able', 'true'. However, there has to be a moment when the literature appears like the vertigo experienced over a sheer and endless drop. Engagement with the literature is the essential step in widening out, indeed seeing the limitless possibilities for open debate with a public extending over centuries, even millennia. Making a voice map of the public space of debate is a way of trying to locate what is at stake in adopting a given way of framing the world and its agendas. Getting a sense of the historical development of major debates, discovering the tributaries, the dead-ends, the forgotten, the overlooked is all a part of the gradual sense of knowing where you are, where you stand, in relation to others. In particular, who claims to know what and why? What kinds of arguments are being made, and why? What are the assumptions at the back of explanations and theories? What happens if the assumptions are challenged or changed? From a review of the literature it is possible to sketch and fill out the details of the problematic, that is, the knot of problems, issues, concerns, interests that each of the voices in the literature have historically addressed. In determining how they address their chosen problems, the outlines of their methodologies can be formulated. Then it is a question of what is at stake expressed by each voice in the choices they make in exploring, examining and forming their conclusions using their chosen methodologies in relation to the problems they address. Which voices have they included in their own reviews of the debates, which have they excluded and why? By asking such questions as these a literature review then can be designed specifically to increase the power of a given argument, set of findings, recommendations and conclusions that have implications for action.

Tatam Chiway , Abdullah Ramdhani , Muhammad Ali Ramdhani

Mahendra Budhathoki

Literature review or research synthesis is an essential component in research field. Novice and student researchers usually take it as a required burden in research, and present haphazardly under sub-topics in research. There is the problem of application and correlating LR with their studies. The main purpose of this paper is to present introduction of LR/research synthesis, its functions and methods in research. LR/research synthesis consists of searching relevant literature, discussing the findings and evidence, correlating the individual studies, interpreting critically, and synthesizing them to build an argument for future research. It is a review article based on qualitative research, but not based on primary data. This paper contributes to answer the questions of writing a LR or synthesis paper, and becomes a useful reference material to novice and student researchers of higher education.

Nicolao Buenaventura

QUEST JOURNALS

Literature review and writing form the basis of research to which it is indispensable. Its systematic process however, remains mysterious, complex and problematic especially to postgraduate students most of whom undertake research for the first time at graduate level. This paper explored the challenges, strengths and mysteries with which literature review and writing was undertaken by graduate students at both master's and Doctoral levels. The paper used primary sources to gather data from graduate students' theses and proposals. Data from those sources revealed how literature review and writing showed different patterns depending on the nature of the research, and the specific objectives of the study. Similarly, different approaches were found to be suitable to different research contexts and methods. The challenges in writing and reviewing literature mainly springs from the failure to clearly define the research problem which propels clarity in the presentation of literature.

Publications

Cherley C Du Plessis

The ability to conduct an explicit and robust literature review by students, scholars or scientists is critical in producing excellent journal articles, academic theses, academic dissertations or working papers. A literature review is an evaluation of existing research works on a specific academic topic, theme or subject to identify gaps and propose future research agenda. Many postgraduate students in higher education institutions lack the necessary skills and understanding to conduct in-depth literature reviews. This may lead to the presentation of incorrect, false or biased inferences in their theses or dissertations. This study offers scientific knowledge on how literature reviews in different fields of study could be conducted to mitigate against biased inferences such as unscientific analogies and baseless recommendations. The literature review is presented as a process that involves several activities including searching, identifying, reading, summarising, compiling, analysing, interpreting and referencing. We hope this article serves as reference material to improve the academic rigour in the literature review chapters of postgraduate students' theses or dissertations. This article prompts established scholars to explore more innovative ways through which scientific literature reviews can be conducted to identify gaps (empirical, knowledge, theoretical, methodological, application and population gap) and propose a future research agenda.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Cogent Education

Zahra Shahsavar

Gloria Latham

InSITE Conference

shardul pandya

KANNANAYAKAL RAJAN

Review of General Psychology

Roy Baumeister

Mansoor Ahmed Khan

Raquel M T Lothringer , DIANA M WAIGANDT

Gavin Mount

dania azira

tahir desta

Sadruddin Qutoshi

tecnico emergencias

Mario Ivanov

shayal kumar

Dr. Diwakar Regmi

Oladokun Segun

Andrew Johnson

Mary Hanrahan

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal

Rita Akele Twumasi

International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature

JOSEPHINE DANIELS

Markéta Gregorová

International Journal of Modern Languages and Applied Linguistics

PROFESSOR DR ANEALKA AZIZ HUSSIN

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation ( Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015 ).

Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses ( Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013 ). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study ( Hart, 1998 ; Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic ( Mulrow, 1987 ). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article ( Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008 ; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003 ; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005 ). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community ( Paré et al., 2015 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

• formulating the research question(s) and objective(s),
• searching the extant literature,
• screening for inclusion,
• assessing the quality of primary studies,
• extracting data, and
• analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases ( Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013 ; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ).

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate ( Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis. Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988 ). Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in place ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Shea et al., 2009 ). Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature ( Jesson et al., 2011 ). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences ( Green et al., 2006 ). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( Silva et al., 2015 ; Paul et al., 2015 ).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health (m-health) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar . The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings ( King & He, 2005 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies ( Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015 ). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews . Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013 ; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011) . These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phr s. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

• Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
• Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
• Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
• Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
• Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
• Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed inde­­pen­dently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guide­lines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( Moher, 2013 ). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions ( Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011 ). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ).

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making ( Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011 ). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their “simplistic” underlying assumptions ( Oates, 2011 ). As explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how “complex interventions” work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent “educated guesses” to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement ( Kirkevold, 1997 ).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles ( Green et al., 2006 ). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

• Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004; 44 (1):44–56. [ PubMed : 15778794 ]
• Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (7):1–12. [ PMC free article : PMC2500008 ] [ PubMed : 18613961 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011; 18 (4):515–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3128401 ] [ PubMed : 21672914 ]
• Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):19–32.
• A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
• Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997; 1 (3):311–320.
• Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
• Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
• Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126 (5):376–380. [ PubMed : 9054282 ]
• Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
• Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988; 1 (1):104–126.
• Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008; 17 (1):38–43. [ PubMed : 18399395 ]
• Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [ PubMed : 25916831 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013; 13 :48. [ PMC free article : PMC3614526 ] [ PubMed : 23522333 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000; 26 (3-4):365–378.
• Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
• Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of “Medical Informatics” in mesh . bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009; 9 :7. [ PMC free article : PMC2652453 ] [ PubMed : 19159472 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10 (1):45–53. [ PubMed : 15667704 ]
• Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69 (1):194–204. [ PMC free article : PMC3424349 ] [ PubMed : 22591030 ]
• Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011; 17 (2):131–148. [ PubMed : 21385026 ]
• Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006; 5 (3):101–117. [ PMC free article : PMC2647067 ] [ PubMed : 19674681 ]
• Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards ( rameses ). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 :115. [ PMC free article : PMC3173389 ] [ PubMed : 21843376 ]
• Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013; 12 cd 007458. [ PMC free article : PMC6485985 ] [ PubMed : 24310741 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
• Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj : Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
• Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
• King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005; 16 :1.
• Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25 (5):977–984. [ PubMed : 9147203 ]
• Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. uk : Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013; 15 (7):e150. [ PMC free article : PMC3785977 ] [ PubMed : 23880072 ]
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015; 17 (3):e63. [ PMC free article : PMC4376138 ] [ PubMed : 25768664 ]
• Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (1):69. [ PMC free article : PMC2954944 ] [ PubMed : 20854677 ]
• Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006; 9 :181–211.
• Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4):W-65. [ PubMed : 19622512 ]
• Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013; 35 (5):47–57. [ PubMed : 24004039 ]
• Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014; 14 :56. [ PMC free article : PMC4099138 ] [ PubMed : 24998515 ]
• Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013; 347 (5040) [ PubMed : 23945367 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article : PMC281591 ] [ PubMed : 14633274 ]
• Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 106 (3):485–488. [ PubMed : 3813259 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evidence-based information systems: A decade later. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ; 2011. Retrieved from http://aisel ​.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent ​.cgi?article ​=1221&context ​=ecis2011 .
• Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
• Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014; 21 (4):751–757. [ PMC free article : PMC4078283 ] [ PubMed : 24503882 ]
• Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015; 52 (2):183–199.
• Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293 (19):2362–2366. [ PubMed : 15900006 ]
• Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015; 18 (3):209–216. [ PubMed : 25608033 ]
• Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
• Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):21–34. [ PubMed : 16053581 ]
• Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015; 64 :1–18.
• Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma : Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
• Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2 (1):475–515.
• Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (3):241–255.
• Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009; 62 (10):1013–1020. [ PubMed : 19230606 ]
• Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (8):e1000086. [ PMC free article : PMC2717209 ] [ PubMed : 19668360 ]
• Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015; 56 :265–272. [ PubMed : 26071682 ]
• Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):15. [ PMC free article : PMC3039637 ] [ PubMed : 21291558 ]
• Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013; 32 (12):1199–1215.
• Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015; 37 (6):112–137.
• Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8 (1):45. [ PMC free article : PMC2478656 ] [ PubMed : 18616818 ]
• Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
• Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002; 26 (2):11.
• Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008; 148 (10):776–782. [ PubMed : 18490690 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

• Cite this Page Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
• PDF version of this title (4.5M)

In this Page

• Introduction
• Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
• Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
• Concluding Remarks

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Ev... Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Library Guides

Literature reviews: criticality.

• Criticality

Express Critical Analysis

The literature review of a dissertation should include critical analysis. You cannot simply juxtapose the literature you find: you have to  evaluate and draw conclusions from it.  

Paragraph level  

Try expressing your voice in each paragraph of your literature review. Write strong paragraphs. In strong paragraphs your voice can be heard in the topic sentence, development (where you analyse and compare/contrast the sources, sometimes as individual pieces, sometimes in a synthesis) and, even more easily, in the concluding sentence, where you present the "therefore" of the paragraph. 

How to express criticality at the paragraph level:  

Identify the significance of the sources, and why the points they are making are relevant  

Make connections between the sources 

Compare and contrast sources, literatures  

Accept/adopt points made by the sources, with reasons  

Reject the points made by the sources, with reasons (e.g., limitations in the methodology; out of date; limited scope; geographical delimitation) 

Indicate the position you are taking in your own work on the theories and concepts presented by the sources 

Show how limitations in the existing literature create a research gap for you 

Organise the materials, synthesising them in an original way, that sheds new light on the topic.  

To find out more about paragraph writing, check out the Assignment Writing Guides.

Literature review level 

Try to take ownership of the literature review. Remember the purposes of the review (providing background on the subject you are researching and identifying a gap in the existing literature on this subject). Thus, throughout the review:   

Identify the key themes relevant to your subject matter  

Identify the most logical and effective order for your themes 

Relate the sources back to the dissertation's research question 

Shed new light on the topic 

Draw conclusions on the existing literature  

Identify gaps in the literature  

Your literature review should present an argument (which you can recap in the concluding paragraph of the literature review). For instance, 

"The literature says/illustrates/reveals that... there are debates in the literature as of... it can be understood from the literature that... however, there are gaps in the literature... the literature does not specifically address (specific sector/location/population)... there is a lack of independent/recent studies on...  therefore in order to answer the research question(s) (you can repeat the question) this dissertation uses method xyz, as illustrated in the next section (if applicable)". 

Manchester University’s  academic phrase bank  is a great resource for learning new words and phrases. 

Extra Resources

For extra help with all aspects of study skills including how to undertake literature reviews, appointments are available with learning advisors on Engage. 

Appointments are also available with an Academic Engagement Librarian to discuss any issues you might be having with research.

• << Previous: Synthesis
• Last Updated: Nov 18, 2023 10:56 PM
• URL: https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/literature-reviews

CONNECT WITH US

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Sample Literature Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 11:00 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

• +44 (0) 207 391 9032

Recent Posts

What is a literature review definition, types, and examples.

• Why Is Your CV Getting Rejected and How to Avoid It
• Where to Find Images for Presentations
• What Is an Internship? Everything You Should Know
• How Long Should a Thesis Statement Be?
• How to Write a Character Analysis Essay
• Best Colours for Your PowerPoint Presentation: Top Colour Combinations
• How to Write a Nursing Essay – With Examples
• Top 5 Essential Skills You Should Build As An International Student
• How Professional Editing Services Can Take Your Writing to the Next Level
• Academic News
• Custom Essays
• Dissertation Writing
• Essay Marking
• Essay Writing
• Essay Writing Companies
• Model Essays
• Model Exam Answers
• Oxbridge Essays Updates
• PhD Writing
• Significant Academics
• Student News
• Study Skills
• University Applications
• University Essays
• University Life
• Writing Tips

Since 2006, Oxbridge Essays has been the UK’s leading paid essay-writing and dissertation service

We have helped 10,000s of undergraduate, Masters and PhD students to maximise their grades in essays, dissertations, model-exam answers, applications and other materials. If you would like a free chat about your project with one of our UK staff, then please just reach out on one of the methods below.

A literature review is an essential part of any academic research paper, thesis, or dissertation. It provides a thorough examination of existing research on a particular topic, allowing the researcher to identify gaps, areas of agreement or disagreement, and emerging trends in the field. In this post, we’ll delve into the definition of a literature review, explore the different types of literature reviews, and provide examples of literature review structures that can guide your own work. Additionally, we’ll offer tips on how to craft a compelling literature review that strengthens the foundation of your research.

Literature Review Meaning

The term "literature review" refers to a comprehensive survey of the scholarly works, books, journal articles, and other sources relevant to a particular research topic. Its primary purpose is to offer a critical evaluation of the existing body of knowledge. The literature review helps set the context for the research question, showing what has already been explored and where gaps in knowledge or methodological limitations may exist. By examining various sources, you can assess how your research fits into the broader conversation within your field. The literature review also provides the foundation for your argument, helping to justify the importance of your research and explain how it contributes to the ongoing academic discussion.

Why Is a Literature Review Important?

A literature review is not just a summary of previous research but a critical analysis of the work that has been done in a particular area of study. It helps demonstrate your understanding of the topic and situates your work within the existing academic landscape. By conducting a literature review, you ensure that your research is not redundant and identify the unique contributions your study can make. Furthermore, the literature review informs your methodology, highlighting which methods have been successful in previous studies and which have encountered limitations. By understanding what has worked before, you can avoid potential pitfalls and build upon the successes of earlier researchers.

Literature Review Structure

The structure of a literature review can vary depending on the nature of your research and the field of study. However, the most common literature review structure includes several key components:

• Introduction :This section outlines the scope of the literature review, defines the key terms, and states the overall purpose of the review. It provides the reader with an understanding of what the review will cover.
• Thematic Organisation : The literature is often organised thematically, grouping together works that address similar aspects of the research topic. Themes can relate to theoretical approaches, methodologies, or different interpretations of key issues.
• Critical Evaluation : The body of the literature review should not only summarise the existing research but also critically evaluate it. This might involve identifying strengths and weaknesses in methodologies, assessing the reliability of findings, and discussing how well the research supports the claims made.
• Conclusion : The conclusion should summarise the main findings of the review, restate the key themes, and highlight gaps in the research that your study will address. It should also reflect on how the literature review has shaped your own research design.

Types of Literature Reviews

There are several different forms of literature reviews, each with a distinct focus and structure. Understanding these types can help you choose the approach that best fits your research needs. Here are some of the most common types of literature reviews:

• Narrative Literature Review : This is the most traditional form of literature review. It provides a comprehensive summary and analysis of the literature on a particular topic. Narrative reviews are often broad in scope and provide an overview of key themes and trends.
• Systematic Literature Review : This type of review involves a rigorous, structured process that aims to identify all relevant studies on a specific research question. Systematic reviews follow a clearly defined methodology, including specific criteria for selecting and analysing studies. They are commonly used in fields such as healthcare, where a comprehensive synthesis of evidence is needed.
• Scoping Review : Clearly outline your main argument or position. This should guide the direction of your essay.
• Scoping Review : A scoping review is used to map the key concepts, sources, and evidence in a research area. It is often the first step before a systematic review and is useful for identifying gaps in the literature and guiding further research.
• Meta-Analysis : This is a form of literature review that uses statistical techniques to combine the results of multiple studies. Meta-analyses are typically used to provide an overall estimate of the effect size for a particular intervention or phenomenon.
• Integrative Review : An integrative review synthesises qualitative and quantitative data to provide a more holistic view of the research on a particular topic. It aims to generate new perspectives by integrating findings from different types of studies.
• Critical Review : This type of literature review goes beyond merely describing the literature. A critical review analyses and synthesises the research, evaluating its strengths and weaknesses and offering new insights and perspectives on the topic.

Short Example of a Literature Review

Below is an example of the literature review from a dissertation on climate change policies. The example demonstrates how to structure a literature review and critically engage with the literature:

Introduction of the Literature Review

Climate change has been a topic of growing concern over the past few decades, with numerous policies introduced globally to mitigate its effects. This review examines the existing literature on climate change policies, focusing on the effectiveness of carbon pricing, renewable energy subsidies, and regulatory approaches. The review aims to highlight the strengths and limitations of these policies and identify gaps in the research that future studies should address.

Thematic Organisation

The literature is organised into three main themes: carbon pricing mechanisms, renewable energy subsidies, and regulatory approaches to emissions reduction. Each theme is analysed in detail, examining the key findings of previous research and assessing the impact of these policies on greenhouse gas emissions.

Critical Evaluation

The review finds that while carbon pricing mechanisms have been effective in reducing emissions in some contexts, their success is heavily dependent on political and economic factors. Renewable energy subsidies have contributed to significant increases in renewable energy capacity, but their long-term sustainability remains in question. Regulatory approaches, while often politically contentious, have proven to be effective in certain jurisdictions.

The literature review concludes that although significant progress has been made in the development of climate change policies, further research is needed to evaluate the long-term impacts of these policies and to explore new approaches that may be more effective in reducing emissions.

Key Considerations

Writing a literature review can be a complex task, but it is a vital part of the research process. By understanding the meaning of a literature review, familiarising yourself with different forms of literature reviews, and following a clear structure, you can create a review that enhances your research project and demonstrates your knowledge of the field.

Top 10 tips for writing a dissertation methodology

Advice for successfully writing a dissertation, how to structure your dissertation in 2024, writing services.

• Essay Plans
• Critical Reviews
• Literature Reviews
• Presentations
• Dissertation Title Creation
• Dissertation Proposals
• Dissertation Chapters
• PhD Proposals
• Journal Publication
• CV Writing Service
• Business Proofreading Services

Editing Services

• Proofreading Service
• Editing Service
• Academic Editing Service

Additional Services

• Marking Services
• Consultation Calls
• Personal Statements
• Tutoring Services

Our Company

• Frequently Asked Questions
• Become a Writer

Terms & Policies

• Fair Use Policy
• Policy for Students in England
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Editing Service Examples
• [email protected]
• Contact Form

Payment Methods

Cryptocurrency payments.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Beyond the financial horizon: a critical review of social responsibility in latin american credit unions.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 3.1. analysis of the financial system, 3.2. financial management and social responsibility, 3.3. credit unions, 3.3.1. credit unions in latin america, 3.3.2. social responsibility in credit unions, 3.3.3. principles and values of cooperativism, 4. discussion, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Killeen, A.; Chan, R. Global Financial Institutions 2.0. In Handbook of Blockchain, Digital Finance, and Inclusion, Volume 2 ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 213–242. [ Google Scholar ]
• Abbott, K.W.; Snidal, D. The Governance Triangle: Regulatory Standards Institutions and the Shadow of the State. In The Spectrum of International Institutions ; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 52–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Iacoviello, M. Financial Business Cycles. Rev. Econ. Dyn. 2015 , 18 , 140–163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Park, H.; Kim, J.D. Transition towards Green Banking: Role of Financial Regulators and Financial Institutions. Asian J. Sustain. Soc. Responsib. 2020 , 5 , 1–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haini, H. Examining the Relationship between Finance, Institutions and Economic Growth: Evidence from the ASEAN Economies. Econ. Chang. Restruct. 2020 , 53 , 519–542. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nasreen, S.; Mahalik, M.K.; Shahbaz, M.; Abbas, Q. How Do Financial Globalization, Institutions and Economic Growth Impact Financial Sector Development in European Countries? Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2020 , 54 , 101247. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borisova, V.I.; Borisov, I.V.; Karagussov, F.S. The Legal Form of Financial Institutions as a Way to Protect the Rights of Financial Market Participants. Glob. J. Comp. Law 2021 , 10 , 29–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McKillop, D.; French, D.; Quinn, B.; Sobiech, A.L.; Wilson, J.O. Cooperative Financial Institutions: A Review of the Literature. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2020 , 71 , 101520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ozhan, G.K. Financial Intermediation, Resource Allocation, and Macroeconomic Interdependence. J. Monet. Econ. 2020 , 115 , 265–278. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maurer, B.; Nelms, T.C.; Rea, S.C. ‘Bridges to Cash’: Channelling Agency in Mobile Money. In Linguistic and Material Intimacies of Cell Phones ; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 69–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anton, S.G.; Nucu, A.E.A. The Effect of Financial Development on Renewable Energy Consumption. A Panel Data Approach. Renew. Energy 2020 , 147 , 330–338. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, L.; Liu, R.; Zhong, Z.; Wang, D.; Xia, Y. Can Green Financial Development Promote Renewable Energy Investment Efficiency? A Consideration of Bank Credit. Renew. Energy 2019 , 143 , 974–984. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, F.; Lu, H.; Hou, M.; Cui, K.; Darbandi, M. Customer Satisfaction with Bank Services: The Role of Cloud Services, Security, e-Learning and Service Quality. Technol. Soc. 2021 , 64 , 101487. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kitsios, F.; Giatsidis, I.; Kamariotou, M. Digital Transformation and Strategy in the Banking Sector: Evaluating the Acceptance Rate of e-Services. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021 , 7 , 204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Morgan, P.J.; Long, T.Q. Financial Literacy, Financial Inclusion, and Savings Behavior in Laos. J. Asian Econ. 2020 , 68 , 101197. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prastiwi, I.E.; Anik, A. The Impact of Credit Diversification on Credit Risk and Performance of Indonesian Banks. Glob. Rev. Islam. Econ. Bus. 2020 , 8 , 013–021. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• David, B.; Abel, F.; Patrick, W. Debit Card and Demand for Cash. J. Bank. Financ. 2016 , 73 , 55–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, I.; Shin, Y.J. Fintech: Ecosystem, Business Models, Investment Decisions, and Challenges. Bus. Horiz. 2018 , 61 , 35–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Obeid, H. Bank-Insurance Integration Level in Ukraine: Science-Methodological Approach. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 2015 , 31 , 2253. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ozili, P.K. Impact of Digital Finance on Financial Inclusion and Stability. Borsa Istanb. Rev. 2018 , 18 , 329–340. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aziz, A.; Naima, U. Rethinking Digital Financial Inclusion: Evidence from Bangladesh. Technol. Soc. 2021 , 64 , 101509. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Javaid, M.; Haleem, A.; Singh, R.P.; Suman, R.; Khan, S. A Review of Blockchain Technology Applications for Financial Services. BenchCouncil Trans. Benchmarks Stand. Eval. 2022 , 2 , 100073. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cabeza-García, L.; Del Brio, E.B.; Oscanoa-Victorio, M.L. Female Financial Inclusion and Its Impacts on Inclusive Economic Development ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; Volume 77, p. 102300. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kappo-Abidemi, C.; Kanayo, O. Higher Education Institutions and Corporate Social Responsibility: Triple Bottomline as a Conceptual Framework for Community Development. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2020 , 8 , 1103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ali, H.Y.; Danish, R.Q.; Asrar-ul-Haq, M. How Corporate Social Responsibility Boosts Firm Financial Performance: The Mediating Role of Corporate Image and Customer Satisfaction. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020 , 27 , 166–177. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marantika, A.; Rathod, H.S.; Chauhan, R.; Putri, L.T.; Maseleno, A. Ethics in Finance, Financial Globalization and Stakeholder Responsibility: New Concept of Corporate Finance. Int. J. Psychosoc. Rehabil. 2020 , 24 , 1556–1563. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Belasri, S.; Gomes, M.; Pijourlet, G. Corporate Social Responsibility and Bank Efficiency. J. Multinatl. Financ. Manag. 2020 , 54 , 100612. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pazarbasioglu, C.; Mora, A.G.; Uttamchandani, M.; Natarajan, H.; Feyen, E.; Saal, M. Digital Financial Services. World Bank 2020 , 54 , 1–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Emara, N.; El Said, A. Financial Inclusion and Economic Growth: The Role of Governance in Selected MENA Countries. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2021 , 75 , 34–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Supriansyah, M.; Syafari, M.R.; Nur, M.A. Community Empowerment through Waste Bank Program in Mandar Sari Kelurahan Banjar Regency. Int. J. Political Law Soc. Sci. 2022 , 3 , 60–74. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neitzert, F.; Petras, M. Corporate Social Responsibility and Bank Risk. J. Bus. Econ. 2022 , 92 , 397–428. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wongsansukcharoen, J. Effect of Community Relationship Management, Relationship Marketing Orientation, Customer Engagement, and Brand Trust on Brand Loyalty: The Case of a Commercial Bank in Thailand. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022 , 64 , 102826. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gambetta, N.; Azcárate-Llanes, F.; Sierra-García, L.; García-Benau, M.A. Financial Institutions’ Risk Profile and Contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 7738. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oladoyin, A.M.; Elumilade, D.; Ashaolu, T. Transparency, Accountability and Ethical Violations in Financial Institutions in Nigeria. J. Soc. Sci. 2005 , 11 , 21–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Giagnocavo, C.; Gerez, S.; Sforzi, J. Cooperative Bank Strategies for Social-economic Problem Solving: Supporting Social Enterprise and Local Development. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2012 , 83 , 281–315. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prorokowski, L.; Prorokowski, H. Organisation of Compliance across Financial Institutions. J. Invest. Compliance 2014 , 15 , 65–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bashir, U.; Khan, S.; Jones, A.; Hussain, M. Do Banking System Transparency and Market Structure Affect Financial Stability of Chinese Banks? Econ. Chang. Restruct. 2021 , 54 , 1–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pakhchanyan, S. Operational Risk Management in Financial Institutions: A Literature Review. Int. J. Financ. Stud. 2016 , 4 , 20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bitar, M.; Pukthuanthong, K.; Walker, T. Efficiency in Islamic vs. Conventional Banking: The Role of Capital and Liquidity. Glob. Financ. J. 2020 , 46 , 100487. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bengo, I.; Boni, L.; Sancino, A. EU Financial Regulations and Social Impact Measurement Practices: A Comprehensive Framework on Finance for Sustainable Development. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022 , 29 , 809–819. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Clifford, C.P.; Gerken, W.C. Property Rights to Client Relationships and Financial Advisor Incentives. J. Financ. 2021 , 76 , 2409–2445. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Johnson, D.; Rodwell, J.; Hendry, T. Analyzing the Impacts of Financial Services Regulation to Make the Case That Buy-Now-Pay-Later Regulation Is Failing. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 1992. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Suryono, R.R.; Budi, I.; Purwandari, B. Challenges and Trends of Financial Technology (Fintech): A Systematic Literature Review. Information 2020 , 11 , 590. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mavlutova, I.; Spilbergs, A.; Verdenhofs, A.; Natrins, A.; Arefjevs, I.; Volkova, T. Digital Transformation as a Driver of the Financial Sector Sustainable Development: An Impact on Financial Inclusion and Operational Efficiency. Sustainability 2022 , 15 , 207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chauhan, S.; Akhtar, A.; Gupta, A. Customer Experience in Digital Banking: A Review and Future Research Directions. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2022 , 14 , 311–348. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xhaferi, A.; Idrizi, F.; Xhaferi, M. Online Payment Systems for E-Banking and Blockchain Technology. ECONOMIC VISION-Int. Sci. J. Econ. Financ. Bus. Mark. Manag. Tour. 2020 , 7 , 63–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohanty, S.; Sharma, S.; Pattnaik, P.K.; Hol, A. A Comprehensive Review on Cyber Security and Online Banking Security Frameworks. In Risk Detection and Cyber Security for the Success of Contemporary Computing ; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2023; pp. 1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinze, A.-K.; Sump, F. Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Analysts: A Review of the Literature. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2019 , 10 , 183–207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sabri, M.F.; Reza, T.S.; Wijekoon, R. Financial Management, Savings and Investment Behavior and Financial Well-Being of Working Women in the Public Sector. Maj. Ilm. Bijak 2020 , 17 , 135–153. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• AlQershi, N. Strategic Thinking, Strategic Planning, Strategic Innovation and the Performance of SMEs: The Mediating Role of Human Capital. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2021 , 11 , 1003–1012. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kimmel, P.D.; Weygandt, J.J.; Kieso, D.E. Financial Accounting: Tools for Business Decision Making ; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; ISBN 1-119-59457-X. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zopounidis, C.; Doumpos, M. Multi-criteria Decision Aid in Financial Decision Making: Methodologies and Literature Review. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 2002 , 11 , 167–186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anton, S.G.; Afloarei Nucu, A.E. The Impact of Working Capital Management on Firm Profitability: Empirical Evidence from the Polish Listed Firms. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2020 , 14 , 9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coelho, R.; Jayantilal, S.; Ferreira, J.J. The Impact of Social Responsibility on Corporate Financial Performance: A Systematic Literature Review. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2023 , 30 , 1535–1560. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, X.; Wang, C.; Li, S. The Impact of Supply Chain Finance on Corporate Social Responsibility and Creating Shared Value: A Case from the Emerging Economy. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2023 , 28 , 324–346. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Server Izquierdo, R.J.; Capó Vicedo, J. Corporate Social Responsibility of Financial Organizations in the Social Economy: A Case Study on Savings Banks. Serv. Bus. 2012 , 6 , 99–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fallah Shayan, N.; Mohabbati-Kalejahi, N.; Alavi, S.; Zahed, M.A. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 1222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hadj, T.B. Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility towards Stakeholders and Environmental Management on Responsible Innovation and Competitiveness. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 250 , 119490. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Okafor, A.; Adeleye, B.N.; Adusei, M. Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Evidence from US Tech Firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 292 , 126078. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lu, J.; Liang, M.; Zhang, C.; Rong, D.; Guan, H.; Mazeikaite, K.; Streimikis, J. Assessment of Corporate Social Responsibility by Addressing Sustainable Development Goals. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021 , 28 , 686–703. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Iramani, R.; Lutfi, L. An Integrated Model of Financial Well-Being: The Role of Financial Behavior. Accounting 2021 , 7 , 691–700. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khafagy, A. Regulation, Supervision and Deposit Insurance for Financial Cooperatives: An Empirical Investigation. Ann. Financ. 2018 , 14 , 143–193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaswan, M.J. Developing Democracy: Cooperatives and Democratic Theory. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2014 , 6 , 190–205. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaswan, M.J. Cooperatives and the Question of Democracy. J. Soc. Econ. Common Welf. 2021 , 44 , 486–500. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nade, P. Enabling Environment for Financial Co-Operatives in Rural Tanzania: Beyond Co-Operative Principles. J. Co-Oper. Bus. Stud. JCBS 2021 , 5 , 8–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Castilla-Polo, F.; Sánchez-Hernández, M.I. Cooperatives and Sustainable Development: A Multilevel Approach Based on Intangible Assets. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 4099. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saz-Gil, I.; Bretos, I.; Díaz-Foncea, M. Cooperatives and Social Capital: A Narrative Literature Review and Directions for Future Research. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 534. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Milana, C.; Ashta, A. Microfinance and Financial Inclusion: Challenges and Opportunities. Strateg. Chang. 2020 , 29 , 257–266. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Segovia-Vargas, M.J.; Miranda-García, I.M.; Oquendo-Torres, F.A. Sustainable Finance: The Role of Savings and Credit Cooperatives in Ecuador. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2023 , 94 , 951–980. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fernandez-Guadaño, J.; Lopez-Millan, M.; Sarria-Pedroza, J. Cooperative Entrepreneurship Model for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 5462. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carrera-Silva, K.A.; Ulcuango, O.M.R.; Salazar, Á.G.C.; Erazo, C.A.S.; Llamuca, K.J.P. Programas e Iniciativas de Educación Financiera: Un Estudio de Las Cooperativas de Ahorro y Crédito Que Conforman La UPROCACH, Ecuador. Green World J. 2024 , 7 , 1–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kalogiannidis, S. Economic Cooperative Models: Agricultural Cooperatives in Greece and the Need to Modernize Their Operation for the Sustainable Development of Local Societies. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2020 , 10 , 452–468. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Goglio, S.; Alexopoulos, Y. Financial Cooperatives and Local Development ; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; ISBN 0-415-69837-5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Venanzi, D.; Matteucci, P. The Largest Cooperative Banks in Continental Europe: A Sustainable Model of Banking. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2022 , 29 , 84–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Périlleux, A.; Vanroose, A.; D’Espallier, B. Are Financial Cooperatives Crowded out by Commercial Banks in the Process of Financial Sector Development? Kyklos 2016 , 69 , 108–134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gagliardi, F. Financial Development and the Growth of Cooperative Firms. Small Bus. Econ. 2009 , 32 , 439–464. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hoffman, K.; Centeno, M.A. The Lopsided Continent: Inequality in Latin America. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2003 , 29 , 363–390. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rojas-Torres, D.; Kshetri, N.; Hanafi, M.M.; Kouki, S. Financial Technology in Latin America. IT Prof. 2021 , 23 , 95–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Okunlola, F.A.; Alatise, M.A.; Ogunniyi, O.R.; Adejumo, M.O. Financial Inclusion for Sustainable Economy: Empirical Evidence from Nigeria. WSEAS Trans. Bus. Econ. 2020 , 17 , 205–214. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Polloni-Silva, E.; da Costa, N.; Moralles, H.F.; Sacomano Neto, M. Does Financial Inclusion Diminish Poverty and Inequality? A Panel Data Analysis for Latin American Countries. Soc. Indic. Res. 2021 , 158 , 889–925. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahamed, M.M.; Ho, S.J.; Mallick, S.K.; Matousek, R. Inclusive Banking, Financial Regulation and Bank Performance: Cross-Country Evidence. J. Bank. Financ. 2021 , 124 , 106055. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lal, T. Impact of Financial Inclusion on Poverty Alleviation through Cooperative Banks. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2018 , 45 , 808–828. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Servin, R.; Lensink, R.; Van den Berg, M. Ownership and Technical Efficiency of Microfinance Institutions: Empirical Evidence from Latin America. J. Bank. Financ. 2012 , 36 , 2136–2144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carvalho, A.L.; Soerger, E.; Sena, J.R. Cooperativism and Microcredit: An Analysis of the Participation of Cooperatives in the Supply of Microcredit in Brazil. Res. Soc. Dev. 2022 , 11 , e16311225534. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grubbauer, M.; Escobar, L. World Bank Experiments in Housing: Microfinance for Self-Organised Housing in Mexico in the Era of Financial Inclusion. Int. J. Hous. Policy 2021 , 21 , 534–558. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Iyer, B. Cooperatives and the Sustainable Development Goals. In Waking the Asian Pacific Co-Operative Potential ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 59–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lafont, J.; Saura, J.R.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D. The Role of Cooperatives in Sustainable Development Goals: A Discussion about the Current Resource Curse. Resour. Policy 2023 , 83 , 103670. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shkolnyk, I.; Kozmenko, S.; Kozmenko, O.; Orlov, V.; Shukairi, F. Modeling of the Financial System? S Stability on the Example of Ukraine. Equilibrium. Q. J. Econ. Econ. Policy 2021 , 16 , 377–411. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zaid, M.A.; Abuhijleh, S.T.; Pucheta-Martínez, M.C. Ownership Structure, Stakeholder Engagement, and Corporate Social Responsibility Policies: The Moderating Effect of Board Independence. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020 , 27 , 1344–1360. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mejia-Escobar, J.C.; González-Ruiz, J.D.; Duque-Grisales, E. Sustainable Financial Products in the Latin America Banking Industry: Current Status and Insights. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 5648. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• D’Adamo, I.; Di Carlo, C.; Gastaldi, M.; Rossi, E.N.; Uricchio, A.F. Economic Performance, Environmental Protection and Social Progress: A Cluster Analysis Comparison towards Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5049. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hala, M. Financial System and Growth and Economic Development. VUZF Rev. 2021 , 6 , 160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paul, J.; Criado, A.R. The Art of Writing Literature Review: What Do We Know and What Do We Need to Know? Int. Bus. Rev. 2020 , 29 , 101717. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021 , 133 , 285–296. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Safi, A.; Chen, Y.; Wahab, S.; Ali, S.; Yi, X.; Imran, M. Financial Instability and Consumption-Based Carbon Emission in E-7 Countries: The Role of Trade and Economic Growth. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021 , 27 , 383–391. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vogel, R.C. Savings Mobilization: The Forgotten Half of Rural Finance. In Undermining Rural Development with Cheap Credit ; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 248–265. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rejekiningsih, T.W.; Kurnia, A.S.; Sugiyanto, F. Analysis of Efficiency of Intermediation Functions from Financial Institutions and Consumer Surplus of Funds in Indonesia. Int. J. Econ. Financ. Stud. 2022 , 14 , 377–408. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haralayya, B.; Aithal, P. Study on Productive Efficiency of Financial Institutions. Int. J. Innov. Res. Technol. 2021 , 8 , 159–164. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hopt, K.J. Corporate Governance of Banks and Financial Institutions: Economic Theory, Supervisory Practice, Evidence and Policy. Eur. Bus. Organ. Law Rev. 2021 , 22 , 13–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Castro-González, S.; Fernández-López, S.; Rey-Ares, L.; Rodeiro-Pazos, D. The Influence of Attitude to Money on Individuals’ Financial Well-Being. Soc. Indic. Res. 2020 , 148 , 747–764. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, G. Banking Institutions and Banking Regulations. In The Handbook of China’s Financial System ; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 9–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fatmawati, K. Gross Domestic Product: Financing & Investment Activities and State Expenditures. KINERJA J. Manaj. Organ. Dan Ind. 2022 , 1 , 11–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Merton, R.C.; Thakor, R.T. Customers and Investors: A Framework for Understanding the Evolution of Financial Institutions. J. Financ. Intermediat. 2019 , 39 , 4–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kafidipe, A.; Uwalomwa, U.; Dahunsi, O.; Okeme, F.O. Corporate Governance, Risk Management and Financial Performance of Listed Deposit Money Bank in Nigeria. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021 , 8 , 1888679. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arhinful, R.; Mensah, L.; Owusu-Sarfo, J.S. The Impact of Capital Structure on the Financial Performance of Financial Institutions in Ghana. Int. J. Financ. Bank. Res. 2023 , 9 , 19–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khan, I.; Hou, F.; Irfan, M.; Zakari, A.; Le, H.P. Does Energy Trilemma a Driver of Economic Growth? The Roles of Energy Use, Population Growth, and Financial Development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021 , 146 , 111157. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Utomo, Y.T.; Hanafi, S.M.; Juliana, J.; Anggrismono, A. Financial System Stabilization in Islamic Economics Perspective. Islam. Res. 2023 , 6 , 63–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dikau, S.; Volz, U. Out of the Window? Green Monetary Policy in China: Window Guidance and the Promotion of Sustainable Lending and Investment. Clim. Policy 2023 , 23 , 122–137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saiful, S.; Aziza, N.; Husaini, H.; Nikmah, N.; Fortuna, K.D. The Impact of New Financial Instrument and Lease Accounting Standard on Financial Performance of Companies. EKUITAS J. Ekon. Dan Keuang. 2023 , 7 , 102–127. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tymoigne, E. A Financial Analysis of Monetary Systems. In Contributions to Economic Theory, Policy, Development and Finance: Essays in Honor of Jan A. Kregel ; Springer: London, UK, 2014; pp. 88–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parameswaran, S.K. Fundamentals of Financial Instruments: An Introduction to Stocks, Bonds, Foreign Exchange, and Derivatives ; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022; ISBN 1-119-81663-7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Akomea-Frimpong, I.; Adeabah, D.; Ofosu, D.; Tenakwah, E.J. A Review of Studies on Green Finance of Banks, Research Gaps and Future Directions. J. Sustain. Financ. Invest. 2022 , 12 , 1241–1264. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gilchrist, D.; Yu, J.; Zhong, R. The Limits of Green Finance: A Survey of Literature in the Context of Green Bonds and Green Loans. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 478. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reyad, H.M.; Zariyawati, M.A.; Ong, T.S.; Muhamad, H. The Impact of Macroeconomic Risk Factors, the Adoption of Financial Derivatives on Working Capital Management, and Firm Performance. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 14447. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jones, S.; Van der Laan, S.; Frost, G.; Loftus, J. The Investment Performance of Socially Responsible Investment Funds in Australia. J. Bus. Ethics 2008 , 80 , 181–203. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Monasterolo, I. Climate Change and the Financial System. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2020 , 12 , 299–320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ozili, P.K. Theories of Financial Inclusion. In Uncertainty and Challenges in Contemporary Economic Behaviour ; Emerald Publishing Limited: Leeds, UK, 2020; pp. 89–115. ISBN 1-80043-096-5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xie, Z.; Liu, X.; Najam, H.; Fu, Q.; Abbas, J.; Comite, U.; Cismas, L.M.; Miculescu, A. Achieving Financial Sustainability through Revenue Diversification: A Green Pathway for Financial Institutions in Asia. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 3512. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Islam, M.A.; Khan, M.A.; Popp, J.; Sroka, W.; Oláh, J. Financial Development and Foreign Direct Investment—The Moderating Role of Quality Institutions. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 3556. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tylchyk, V.; Matselyk, T.; Hryshchuk, V.; Lomakina, O.; Sydor, M.; Leheza, Y. Administrative and Legal Regulation of Public Financial Activity. Cuest. Políticas 2022 , 40 , 573–581. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Štrukelj, T.; Beloglavec, S.T.; Zdolšek, D.; Jagrič, V. Financial Institutions’ Governance Innovation and Credibility Strategy. In Insurance and Risk Management for Disruptions in Social, Economic and Environmental Systems: Decision and Control Allocations within New Domains of Risk ; Emerald Publishing Limited: Leeds, UK, 2022; pp. 233–255. ISBN 1-80117-140-8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang, V.; Baudier, P.; Zhang, H.; Xu, Q.; Zhang, J.; Arami, M. How Blockchain Can Impact Financial Services–The Overview, Challenges and Recommendations from Expert Interviewees. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020 , 158 , 120166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sangwan, V.; Prakash, P.; Singh, S. Financial Technology: A Review of Extant Literature. Stud. Econ. Financ. 2020 , 37 , 71–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ferreira, A.; Sandner, P. Eu Search for Regulatory Answers to Crypto Assets and Their Place in the Financial Markets’ Infrastructure. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 2021 , 43 , 105632. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bagheri, E.; Ebrahimi, S.B. Estimating Network Connectedness of Financial Markets and Commodities. J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 2020 , 29 , 572–589. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ji, T.; Khadidos, A.O.; Keir, M.Y.A. Application of Regression Function Model Based on Panel Data in Bank Resource Allocation Financial Risk Management. Appl. Math. Nonlinear Sci. 2021 , 7 , 181–192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, J.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, Q. The Relationship of Renewable Energy Consumption to Financial Development and Economic Growth in China. Renew. Energy 2021 , 170 , 897–904. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luchkin, A.; Lukasheva, O.; Novikova, N.; Melnikov, V.; Zyatkova, A.; Yarotskaya, E. Cryptocurrencies in the Global Financial System: Problems and Ways to Overcome Them ; Atlantis Press: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 423–430. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gropp, R.; Guettler, A.; Saadi, V. Public Bank Guarantees and Allocative Efficiency. J. Monet. Econ. 2020 , 116 , 53–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, H. Credit Risk Management of Consumer Finance Based on Big Data. Mob. Inf. Syst. 2021 , 2021 , 8189255. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Satoto, S.H.; Putra, H.N.K. The Effect of Financial Literacy and Other Determinants on the Intention to Use Electronic Money: Consumer Behavior as a Variable Mediation. Int. J. Appl. Bus. Int. Manag. IJABIM 2021 , 6 , 23–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Szymaniec-Mlicka, K. The Decision-Making Process in Public Healthcare Entities–Identification of the Decision-Making Process Type. Management 2017 , 21 , 191–204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Burtonshaw-Gunn, S.A. Risk and Financial Management in Construction ; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; ISBN 1-315-24411-X. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oudat, M.S.; Ali, B.J. The Underlying Effect of Risk Management On Banks’ Financial Performance: An Analytical Study On Commercial and Investment Banking in Bahrain. Ilkogr. Online 2021 , 20 , 404–414. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barauskaite, G.; Streimikiene, D. Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance of Companies: The Puzzle of Concepts, Definitions and Assessment Methods. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021 , 28 , 278–287. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Viknianska, A.; Kharynovych-Yavorska, D.; Sahaidak, M.; Zhavoronok, A.; Filippov, V. Methodological Approach to Economic Analysis and Control of Enterprises under Conditions of Economic Systems Transformation. Sci. Bull. Natl. Min. Univ. 2021 , 4 , 150–157. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fuertes, G.; Alfaro, M.; Vargas, M.; Gutierrez, S.; Ternero, R.; Sabattin, J. Conceptual Framework for the Strategic Management: A Literature Review—Descriptive. J. Eng. 2020 , 2020 , 6253013. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Atmaja, D.S.; Fachrurazi, F.; Abdullah, A.; Fauziah, F.; Zaroni, A.N.; Yusuf, M. Actualization of Performance Management Models for the Development of Human Resources Quality, Economic Potential, and Financial Governance Policy in Indonesia Ministry of Education. Multicult. Educ. 2023 , 9 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Riinawati, R. Education Financial Management during Covid-19 Pandemic of Islamic Universities in South Kalimantan. Din. Ilmu 2021 , 21 , 383–396. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cremasco, C.; Boni, L. Is the European Union (EU) Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) Effective in Shaping Sustainability Objectives? An Analysis of Investment Funds’ Behaviour. J. Sustain. Financ. Invest. 2022 , 11 , 1–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chugunov, I.; Makohon, V. Budgetary Projection in the System of Financial and Economic Regulation of Social Processes. Balt. J. Econ. Stud. 2020 , 6 , 130–135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Battiston, S.; Dafermos, Y.; Monasterolo, I. Climate Risks and Financial Stability. J. Financ. Stab. 2021 , 54 , 100867. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ren, S.; Du, M.; Bu, W.; Lin, T. Assessing the Impact of Economic Growth Target Constraints on Environmental Pollution: Does Environmental Decentralization Matter? J. Environ. Manag. 2023 , 336 , 117618. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yan, C.; Li, H.; Li, Z. Environmental Pollution and Economic Growth: Evidence of SO2 Emissions and GDP in China. Front. Public Health 2022 , 10 , 930780. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, X.; Wang, J.; Yang, C. Risk Prediction in Financial Management of Listed Companies Based on Optimized BP Neural Network under Digital Economy. Neural Comput. Appl. 2023 , 35 , 2045–2058. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beladi, H.; Deng, J.; Hu, M. Cash Flow Uncertainty, Financial Constraints and R&D Investment. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2021 , 76 , 101785. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, Y.; Kumara, E.K.; Sivakumar, V. Invesitigation of Finance Industry on Risk Awareness Model and Digital Economic Growth. Ann. Oper. Res. 2021 , 326 , 1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zając, A.; Balina, R.; Kowalski, D. Financial and Economic Stability of Energy Sector Enterprises as a Condition for Poland’s Energy Security—Legal and Economic Aspects. Energies 2023 , 16 , 1442. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ashta, A.; Herrmann, H. Artificial Intelligence and Fintech: An Overview of Opportunities and Risks for Banking, Investments, and Microfinance. Strateg. Chang. 2021 , 30 , 211–222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abad-Segura, E.; González-Zamar, M.-D.; López-Meneses, E.; Vázquez-Cano, E. Financial Technology: Review of Trends, Approaches and Management. Mathematics 2020 , 8 , 951. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cardon, M.S.; Stevens, C.E. Managing Human Resources in Small Organizations: What Do We Know? Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2004 , 14 , 295–323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parris, D.L.; Dapko, J.L.; Arnold, R.W.; Arnold, D. Exploring Transparency: A New Framework for Responsible Business Management. Manag. Decis. 2016 , 54 , 222–247. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shabbir, M.S.; Wisdom, O. The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility, Environmental Investments and Financial Performance: Evidence from Manufacturing Companies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020 , 27 , 39946–39957. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chatzitheodorou, K.; Skouloudis, A.; Evangelinos, K.; Nikolaou, I. Exploring Socially Responsible Investment Perspectives: A Literature Mapping and an Investor Classification. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019 , 19 , 117–129. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ekeatte, S.; Akeke, M.; Ekpenyong, J. School Finance Management Structure and Effective Delivery of 21st Century Secondary Education in Cross River State. Glob. J. Educ. Res. 2019 , 18 , 71–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Awaysheh, A.; Heron, R.A.; Perry, T.; Wilson, J.I. On the Relation between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2020 , 41 , 965–987. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maqbool, S.; Zameer, M.N. Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: An Empirical Analysis of Indian Banks. Future Bus. J. 2018 , 4 , 84–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stutz, C. History in Corporate Social Responsibility: Reviewing and Setting an Agenda. Bus. Hist. 2021 , 63 , 175–204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Latapí Agudelo, M.A.; Jóhannsdóttir, L.; Davídsdóttir, B. A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility. Int. J. Corp. Soc. Responsib. 2019 , 4 , 1–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Benlemlih, M.; Bitar, M. Corporate Social Responsibility and Investment Efficiency. J. Bus. Ethics 2018 , 148 , 647–671. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cosma, S.; Venturelli, A.; Schwizer, P.; Boscia, V. Sustainable Development and European Banks: A Non-Financial Disclosure Analysis. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 6146. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ziolo, M.; Filipiak, B.Z.; Bąk, I.; Cheba, K. How to Design More Sustainable Financial Systems: The Roles of Environmental, Social, and Governance Factors in the Decision-Making Process. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 5604. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Crossley, R.M.; Elmagrhi, M.H.; Ntim, C.G. Sustainability and Legitimacy Theory: The Case of Sustainable Social and Environmental Practices of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021 , 30 , 3740–3762. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Castro-Arce, K.; Vanclay, F. Transformative Social Innovation for Sustainable Rural Development: An Analytical Framework to Assist Community-Based Initiatives. J. Rural Stud. 2020 , 74 , 45–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pucheta-Martínez, M.C.; Bel-Oms, I.; Nekhili, M. The Contribution of Financial Entities to the Sustainable Development through the Reporting of Corporate Social Responsibility Information. Sustain. Dev. 2019 , 27 , 388–400. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sila, I.; Cek, K. The Impact of Environmental, Social and Governance Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility on Economic Performance: Australian Evidence. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017 , 120 , 797–804. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Long, W.; Li, S.; Wu, H.; Song, X. Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Roles of Government Intervention and Market Competition. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020 , 27 , 525–541. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martínez, C.; Skeet, A.G.; Sasia, P.M. Managing Organizational Ethics: How Ethics Becomes Pervasive within Organizations. Bus. Horiz. 2021 , 64 , 83–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nakayiso, E.; Andrew, N. A Historical Review on the Global Evolution, Benefits, Challenges and Performance of Cooperatives. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2023 , 8 , 51–75. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kosinowski, G. Cooperative Social Responsibility: A Case Illustration of the Unique Character of Cooperative Governance and Its Relation to the Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility. In Responsible Business in a Changing World: New Management Approaches for Sustainable Development ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 115–136. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ushkarenko, I.; Soloviov, A. World Economic Order: Evolution of the Cooperative Sector. Philos. Cosmol. 2020 , 25 , 139–152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peinado-Vara, E. Corporate Social Responsibility in Latin America. In Corporate Citizenship in Latin America: New Challenges for Business ; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; pp. 61–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duch-Plana, M.; Pons-Altés, J.M. Social Alternatives in Southern Europe and Latin America: Solidarity, Mutual Aid, and Cooperation in Comparative Perspective (19th–21st Centuries) ; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2024; ISBN 1-04-000029-0. [ Google Scholar ]
• Douvitsa, I. National Constitutions and Cooperatives: An Overview. In Perspectives on Cooperative Law: Festschrift In Honour of Professor Hagen Henrÿ ; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 57–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cracogna, D. Fifty Years in Latin American Cooperative Law. In Perspectives on Cooperative Law: Festschrift In Honour of Professor Hagen Henrÿ ; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 17–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruggeri, A. Workers’ Self-Management in Latin America: From the First Cooperatives to the Workers’ Recuperated Enterprises. In Setbacks and Advances in the Modern Latin American Economy ; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 300–323. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ajates, R. An Integrated Conceptual Framework for the Study of Agricultural Cooperatives: From Repolitisation to Cooperative Sustainability. J. Rural Stud. 2020 , 78 , 467–479. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Estivill, J. Comparative Notes on the History of the Social and Solidarity Economy in Latin Europe. In Social Alternatives in Southern Europe and Latin America ; Routledge: London, UK, 2024; pp. 9–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Giagnocavo, C. The Development of the Cooperative Movement and Civil Society in Almeria, Spain: Something from Nothing? Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 9820. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Patmore, G.; Balnave, N. A Global History of Co-Operative Business ; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; ISBN 1-315-63816-9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Veltmeyer, H. The Social Economy in Latin America as Alternative Development. Can. J. Dev. Stud. 2018 , 39 , 38–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fusco, F.; Migliaccio, G. Crisis, Sectoral and Geographical Factors: Financial Dynamics of Italian Cooperatives. EuroMed J. Bus. 2018 , 13 , 130–148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eşim, S. Cooperatives. In The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Economics ; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 486–494. [ Google Scholar ]
• García Lozano, A.; Méndez-Medina, C.; Basurto, X.; Tercero Tovar, M. Problemáticas: Multi-Scalar, Affective and Performative Politics of Collective Action among Fishing Cooperatives in Mexico. Environ. Plan. C Politics Space 2023 , 41 , 1263–1281. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Orsatto, L.F.; Macagnan, C.B.; do Nascimento, A.Q. The Level of Disclosure of Sustainability Information of Credit Unions in Brazil and Germany. Int. J. Prof. Bus. Rev. 2024 , 9 , e04709. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gupta, A.; Bherwani, H.; Gautam, S.; Anjum, S.; Musugu, K.; Kumar, N.; Anshul, A.; Kumar, R. Air Pollution Aggravating COVID-19 Lethality? Exploration in Asian Cities Using Statistical Models. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021 , 23 , 6408–6417. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rostami, K.; Salehi, L. Rural Cooperatives Social Responsibility in Promoting Sustainability-Oriented Activities in the Agricultural Sector: Nexus of Community, Enterprise, and Government. Sustain. Futures 2024 , 7 , 100150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yan, M.-R.; Hong, L.-Y.; Warren, K. Integrated Knowledge Visualization and the Enterprise Digital Twin System for Supporting Strategic Management Decision. Manag. Decis. 2022 , 60 , 1095–1115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Budiasni, N.W.N.; Ayuni, N.M.S. Transparency and Accountability Based on The Concept of “Pada Gelahang” Enhancing Village Financial Management. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Bus. 2020 , 4 , 501–508. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Delis, M.D.; Hasan, I.; Ongena, S. Democracy and Credit. J. Financ. Econ. 2020 , 136 , 571–596. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gulcemal, T. Financial Globalization, Institutions and Economic Growth Impact on Financial Sector Development in Fragile Countries Using GMM Estimator. J. Bus. Econ. Financ. 2021 , 10 , 36–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cont, R.; Kotlicki, A.; Valderrama, L. Liquidity at Risk: Joint Stress Testing of Solvency and Liquidity. J. Bank. Financ. 2020 , 118 , 105871. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mhlanga, D. Industry 4.0 in Finance: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence (Ai) on Digital Financial Inclusion. Int. J. Financ. Stud. 2020 , 8 , 45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tamvada, M. Corporate Social Responsibility and Accountability: A New Theoretical Foundation for Regulating CSR. Int. J. Corp. Soc. Responsib. 2020 , 5 , 2. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Siedlok, F.; Callagher, L.; Elsahn, Z.; Korber, S. Strategy Performation to Avoid Degeneration: How Producer Cooperatives Can Achieve Social and Economic Goals. Organ. Stud. 2024 , 45 , 31–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Loor Alcívar, I.; González Santa Cruz, F.; Moreira Mero, N.; Hidalgo-Fernández, A. Study of Corporate Sustainability Dimensions in the Cooperatives of Ecuador. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 462. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Novkovic, S.; Golja, T. Cooperatives and Civil Society: Potential for Local Cooperative Development in Croatia. J. Entrep. Organ. Divers. 2015 , 4 , 153–169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Díaz de León, D.; Díaz Fragoso, O.; Rivera, I.; Rivera, G. Cooperatives of Mexico: Their Social Benefits and Their Contribution to Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. Soc. Sci. 2021 , 10 , 149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carrera-Silva, K. Balance Social Para las Cooperativas de Ahorro y Crédito del Ecuador , 1st ed.; Puerto Madero Editorial Académica: Puerto Madero, Ecuador, 2024; ISBN 978-631-6557-42-1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fouché, K.B.; Polo-Garrido, F. Corporate Reporting by Cooperatives: Mapping the Landscape and Identifying Determinants. J. Contemp. Account. Econ. 2024 , 20 , 100436. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lafont-Torio, J.; Martín, J.M.M.; Fernández, J.A.S.; Soriano, D.R. Perceptions of Progress toward Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: Insights from Cooperative Managers. Sustain. Technol. Entrep. 2024 , 3 , 100055. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• ICA Cooperative Identity, Values & Principles. Available online: https://ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity (accessed on 7 April 2024).
• Zeuli, K.A.; Cropp, R.; Schaars, M.A. Cooperatives: Principles and Practices in the 21st Century ; University of Wisconsin: Madison, WI, USA, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Erwantoro, H.; Karunia, R.L.; Amin, F. Keeping Bung Hatta’s Idea: Cooperatives for Social and Economic Development. Res Mil. 2023 , 13 , 3765–3776. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bierecki, D. Legal Status and Development Trends of Credit Unions in Polish Law and Its Compliance with the WOCCU Standards and the International Cooperative Principles. Boletín Asoc. Int. Derecho Coop. 2020 , 56 , 19–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guttmann, A. Commons and Cooperatives: A New Governance of Collective Action. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2021 , 92 , 33–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guzmán, C.; Santos, F.J.; Barroso, M.d.l.O. Analysing the Links between Cooperative Principles, Entrepreneurial Orientation and Performance. Small Bus. Econ. 2020 , 55 , 1075–1089. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Golovina, S.; Antonova, M.; Abilova, E. Assessment of Agricultural Cooperatives’ Performance in Russia: The Case of the Kurgan Region ; Atlantis Press: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 370–376. [ Google Scholar ]
• Billiet, A.; Dufays, F.; Friedel, S.; Staessens, M. The Resilience of the Cooperative Model: How Do Cooperatives Deal with the COVID-19 Crisis? Strateg. Chang. 2021 , 30 , 99–108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spector, H. Autonomy and Rights. In The Routledge Handbook of Autonomy ; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; pp. 313–323. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bassachs, M.; Cañabate, D.; Serra, T.; Colomer, J. Interdisciplinary Cooperative Educational Approaches to Foster Knowledge and Competences for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8624. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghauri, S.; Mazzarol, T.; Soutar, G. Co-Operative Principles and Values: Does the Talk Match the Walk? J. Co-Oper. Stud. 2021 , 54 , 7–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nikolić, M.; Božić, I.; Božić, D. Cooperative Principles in Practice: Experiences of Serbia. West. Balk. J. Agric. Econ. Rural Dev. WBJAERD 2021 , 3 , 97–110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ozturk, I.; Ullah, S. Does Digital Financial Inclusion Matter for Economic Growth and Environmental Sustainability in OBRI Economies? An Empirical Analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022 , 185 , 106489. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sacchetti, S.; Tortia, E.C. Governing Cooperatives in the Context of Individual Motives. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2021 , 48 , 181–203. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kawano, E. Solidarity Economy: Building an Economy for People and Planet. In The New Systems Reader ; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; pp. 285–302. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mannan, M.; Pek, S. Solidarity in the Sharing Economy: The Role of Platform Cooperatives at the Base of the Pyramid ; Springer: Singapore, 2021; ISBN 9811624135. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pavlovskaya, M.; Borowiak, C.; Safri, M.; Healy, S.; Eletto, R. The Place of Common Bond: Can Credit Unions Make Place for Solidarity Economy? Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 2020 , 110 , 1278–1299. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ostergaard, G.N.; Halsey, A.H. Power in Co-Operatives. In Studies in British Society ; Routledge: London, UK, 2023; pp. 102–138. [ Google Scholar ]
• Basterretxea, I.; Cornforth, C.; Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. Corporate Governance as a Key Aspect in the Failure of Worker Cooperatives. Econ. Ind. Democr. 2022 , 43 , 362–387. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Uzougbo, N.S.; Ikegwu, C.G.; Adewusi, A.O. Cybersecurity Compliance in Financial Institutions: A Comparative Analysis of Global Standards and Regulations. Int. J. Sci. Res. Arch. 2024 , 12 , 533–548. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khang, A.; Gujrati, R.; Uygun, H.; Tailor, R.; Gaur, S. Data-Driven Modelling and Predictive Analytics in Business and Finance: Concepts, Designs, Technologies, and Applications ; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2024; ISBN 1-04-008846-5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ofoeda, I.; Amoah, L.; Anarfo, E.B.; Abor, J.Y. Financial Inclusion and Economic Growth: What Roles Do Institutions and Financial Regulation Play? Int. J. Financ. Econ. 2024 , 29 , 832–848. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cooper, R.G.; Easingwood, C.J.; Edgett, S.; Kleinschmidt, E.J.; Storey, C. What Distinguishes the Top Performing New Products in Financial Services. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. Int. Publ. Prod. Dev. Manag. Assoc. 1994 , 11 , 281–299. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nuchian, N.; Biju, A.V.N.; Reddy, K. An Investigation on Social Impact Performance Assessment of the Social Enterprises: Identification of an Ideal Social Entrepreneurship Model. Bus. Strategy Dev. 2024 , 7 , e305. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Michele, B. Italian Community Co-Operatives: Structuration of Community Development Processes in Italy. Rev. Soc. Econ. 2024 , 82 , 316–342. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Calabrese, G.G.; Falavigna, G. Do Social Cooperatives Stimulate Social Change? An Investigation on Italian Firms Based on DEA-Malmquist Approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2024 , 199 , 123016. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kiss, M.; Rácz, K. Beyond the Formal Economy. Social Cooperatives for Labour Integration under the Pressure of Market Competitiveness. Soc. Enterp. J. 2024 , 20 , 472–498. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carias, J.; Vásquez-Lavín, F.; Barrientos, M.; Oliva, R.D.P.; Gelcich, S. Economic Valuation of Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB): Methodological Challenges, Policy Implications, and an Empirical Application. J. Environ. Manag. 2024 , 365 , 121566. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van der Heijden, A.; Driessen, P.P.; Cramer, J.M. Making Sense of Corporate Social Responsibility: Exploring Organizational Processes and Strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 2010 , 18 , 1787–1796. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Katsoulakos, T.; Katsoulacos, Y. Integrating Corporate Responsibility Principles and Stakeholder Approaches into Mainstream Strategy: A Stakeholder-oriented and Integrative Strategic Management Framework. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2007 , 7 , 355–369. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vásquez, J.S.; Jara, J.P.S.; Salinas, M.P.U.; Avendaño, D.F.O. Social Capital and Credit Risk in a Financial Cooperative of Ecuador. J. Co-Oper. Organ. Manag. 2024 , 12 , 100247. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bauwens, T.; Huybrechts, B.; Dufays, F. Understanding the Diverse Scaling Strategies of Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Renewable Energy Cooperatives. Organ. Environ. 2020 , 33 , 195–219. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tabak, B.M.; Fazio, D.M.; Cajueiro, D.O. Systemically Important Banks and Financial Stability: The Case of Latin America. J. Bank. Financ. 2013 , 37 , 3855–3866. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arora, P.; De, P. Environmental Sustainability Practices and Exports: The Interplay of Strategy and Institutions in Latin America. J. World Bus. 2020 , 55 , 101094. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Teti, E.; Dell’Acqua, A.; Etro, L.; Resmini, F. Corporate Governance and Cost of Equity: Empirical Evidence from Latin American Companies. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2016 , 16 , 831–848. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Carrera-Silva, K.; Rodríguez Ulcuango, O.M.; Abdo-Peralta, P.; Castelo Salazar, Á.G.; Samaniego Erazo, C.A.; Haro Ávalos, D. Beyond the Financial Horizon: A Critical Review of Social Responsibility in Latin American Credit Unions. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187908

Carrera-Silva K, Rodríguez Ulcuango OM, Abdo-Peralta P, Castelo Salazar ÁG, Samaniego Erazo CA, Haro Ávalos D. Beyond the Financial Horizon: A Critical Review of Social Responsibility in Latin American Credit Unions. Sustainability . 2024; 16(18):7908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187908

Carrera-Silva, Katherin, Olga Maritza Rodríguez Ulcuango, Paula Abdo-Peralta, Ángel Gerardo Castelo Salazar, Carmen Amelia Samaniego Erazo, and Diego Haro Ávalos. 2024. "Beyond the Financial Horizon: A Critical Review of Social Responsibility in Latin American Credit Unions" Sustainability 16, no. 18: 7908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187908

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Systematic Review
• Open access
• Published: 05 September 2024

Components and entities of post-disaster damage and loss assessment program in healthcare sector: a scoping review

• Javad Miri   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1464-6788 1 ,
• Golrokh Atighechian   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3290-2765 2 ,
• Hesam Seyedin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5614-4052 3 &
• Ahmad Reza Raeisi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8588-4340 4  

BMC Public Health volume  24 , Article number:  2417 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Disasters can cause casualties and significant financial loss. In accordance with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, areas affected by disasters must be built back better. Accurate post-disaster damage and loss assessments are critical for the success of recovery programs. This scoping review aimed to identify the components and entities of the healthcare sector’s post-disaster damage and loss assessment program.

An comprehensive search for relevant literature was performed using several databases, including the Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, and Magiran. The search was limited to papers published between 2010 and 2022. In addition, we searched the grey literature for resources related to post-disaster damage and loss assessments. Study selection and data extraction were evaluated by a third reviewer. The main themes were determined through a consensus process and agreement among team members.

A total of 845 papers were identified, 41 of which were included in the review. The grey literature search yielded 1015 documents, 23 of which were associated with the study’s purpose. The findings were classified into five main themes, 20 subthemes, and 876 codes. The main-themes include the following: Concepts and Definitions; Post-Disaster Damage and Loss Assessment Procedures; Healthcare sector procedures; Assessments Tools, and Methods; Intra-sectoral, Inter-sectoral, and cross-cutting issues.

Conclusions

The existing corpus of literature on post-disaster damage and loss assessment programs within the healthcare sector offers only limited insights into the entities and components involved. It is of great importance that stakeholders have an extensive grasp of these pivotal concepts and principles, as they are fundamental in enabling effective responses to disasters, informed decision-making, and facilitating rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts. Consequently, there is a considerable scope for further investigation in this area.

Scoping review registration number

https://osf.io/nj3fk .

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The most significant consequences of disasters are health impacts that occur in the aftermath [ 1 ]. Natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods not only have a detrimental impact on an individual’s health but also result in significant damage to the healthcare sector, reducing its capacity to respond and recover effectively. This, in turn, leads to a rise in mortality and morbidity rates [ 2 , 3 ]. Disasters directly damage the physical structure of hospitals, clinics, and healthcare centers and indirectly affect the health sector by destroying community infrastructure, such as water, electricity, fuel, transportation, and communication systems. Additionally, disasters can impact healthcare providers and their families [ 4 , 5 ].

Providing essential health services is challenging during disasters because of infrastructure failure and the inefficiency of healthcare centres [ 6 ]. It is evident that the health centres play a pivotal role in alleviating the negative consequences that arise in the aftermath of disasters. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to ensure the uninterrupted functioning of this vital infrastructures [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Comprehending the health consequences of disasters provides the basis for identifying demands, improving capacity, and providing opportunities for reconstruction and future disaster risk reduction [ 10 ].

The convergence of four seminal accords on disaster risk reduction, development finance, sustainable development, and climate change at the end of 2015 presented a singularly promising opportunity to achieve coherence across related policy domains. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction represents the global policy framework of the United Nations from 2015 to 2030. This represents a significant advance in global policy coherence concerning health, development, and climate change [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. One of the principal objectives of the Sendai Framework is to enhance disaster preparedness for an effective response and “build back better“(BBB) in recovery [ 14 ].

The scope of disaster recovery is broader than that of response. In the context of the health system, recovery is defined as the reconstruction, restoration, and upgrading of the components of a country’s health sector and the main functions of public health, in accordance with the BBB principle and the goals of sustainable development [ 15 ]. For an optimal reconstruction, it is necessary to develop a legal, technical, and comprehensive framework. The success of a reconstruction program depends on an accurate assessment of the damage, loss, and needs of the post-disaster area to determine the approaches, goals, priorities, and measures required for reconstruction [ 2 ].

The post-disaster reconstruction of the health system in developing countries is hindered by some factors, including a lack of knowledge and expertise, limited budget and planning, political competition, fraud, and embezzlement or misuse of social benefits [ 3 , 16 ]. Considering the argument of ‘humanitarian ignorance’, In light of the argument put forth by scholars who refer to this phenomenon as “humanitarian ignorance,“ [ 17 ], it can be argued that this “knowledge” does exist and that it is purposeful ignorance of said knowledge.

In 2008, the European Union, World Bank, and United Nations Development Group implemented a standard post-disaster assessment approach and developed a comprehensive and collaborative post-disaster assessment program [ 18 ]. In damage and loss assessments, experts in each sector calculate post-disaster damage and loss, which are essential in reconstruction programs [ 19 , 20 ].

Chapin et al. (2009) studied the impact of the 2007 Ica earthquake on healthcare facilities in southern Peru. They reported that after an earthquake of magnitude 7.9 in Peru, 60% of the health centers in the region were affected to the degree that they were unable to provide client services. This study revealed that reports of damage assessments in a single disaster were sometimes not the same [ 21 ]. Achour et al. (2020) evaluated hospital performance after the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake in Japan. Data analysis revealed that the impaired function of some healthcare centers in the affected areas significantly affected the health needs of the local communities [ 22 ].

Similar to other social sectors, the disaster impacts on the healthcare sector is considerable and is one of the concerns of managers and experts in the healthcare sector. In light of the pivotal role of the health sector in post-disaster response and recovery, as well as in the development of a post-disaster reconstruction program, it is crucial to conduct a thorough assessment of damage and losses incurred following a disaster. A post-disaster damage and loss assessment in the health sector can serve as a foundation for the creation of a coherent and integrated framework for health reconstruction. The absence of a post-disaster damage and loss assessment program may result in certain requirements being overlooked, the results of which are not deemed acceptable, facilities being allocated on a non-prioritized basis, and there being no basis for monitoring the implementation of plans and activities. Assessment is a demanding and decisive management task that is effective in decision-making, planning, monitoring, handling a program, and taking coherent actions. Post-disaster damage and loss assessment has a direct impact on decision-making, planning, monitoring of responses, and the implementation of recovery operations. Consequently, these assessments must be purposeful and scheduled.

Review objective and research questions

This scoping review was conducted to identify the entities and components of post-disaster damage and loss assessment programs in the healthcare sector. The PCC framework, which includes the participants, concepts, and context recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute, was used to develop the research question [ 23 ]. The research question for this scoping review is as follows: what information is available about the entities and components of the healthcare sector’s post-disaster damage and loss assessment program?

A knowledge gap exists in the field of post-disaster damage and loss assessment in the healthcare sector. To address this issue, the most appropriate methodology for achieving the study’s objective was identified as a scoping review. This systematic scoping review was conducted under the proposed Joanna Briggs Institute method [ 24 ]. The study included the following steps: defining and aligning the research objectives and questions, developing the inclusion and exclusion criteria, describing the planned approach to the evidence search, study selection, data extraction, presentation of the evidence, searching for evidence, selecting the evidence, extracting the evidence, analyzing the evidence, presenting the results, and summarizing the evidence [ 23 ]. The study protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework on 4 June 2022 [ 25 ] and was published in BMJ Open [ 26 ]. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR Checklist 1) [ 27 ] checklist was used to report the results of this scoping review.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

In keeping with the scoping review methodology, our inclusion criteria (Table  1 ) were broad, and our search was comprehensive in capturing the entities and components of the healthcare sector’s post-disaster damage and loss assessment program. We included literature reviews, primary empirical articles, case studies, opinion pieces, and editorials published in English or Persian “due to geographical focus, and researcher language skills”. In addition, grey literature related to the study objective, including dissertations, organizational documents, post-disaster assessment reports, and guidelines, was searched and reviewed. Table  2 presents a distribution of studies by location, organization, and document type.

Search strategy

The search strategy was drafted with the help of an experienced informaticist librarian and was further refined through team discussion. Initially, a primary search was conducted on the Google Scholar, PubMed, World Bank, and PreventionWeb websites. The following concepts were extracted from the documents: post-conflict consequences in health systems, disaster impacts on the healthcare sector, post-disaster damage and loss assessment, post-earthquake hospital functionality, post-disaster damage and loss assessment, disaster damage, operational status of healthcare facilities during a hurricane, and the impacts of extreme events. An appropriate search strategy was used for each database (Table  3 ).

Study selection

We searched all English and Persian articles published from 2010 to 2022 on the Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and Magiran databases. Our search started on 20 January 2022. The search results were imported into Endnote X9 software. After removing the duplicates, J. Miri checked all the remaining titles to remove unrelated documents. The titles and abstracts of the remaining articles were independently examined by two authors (J. Miri and A.R. Raeisi) to reach a common understanding of the selection criteria, discussion of disagreements, and definition of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The remaining articles were uploaded to Rayyan software to facilitate record screening. The full texts of articles whose abstracts did not meet the exclusion criteria or were ambiguous were reviewed. Discrepancies in inclusion or exclusion decisions were resolved through discussion (G. Atighechian). Finally, the reference lists were checked to identify relevant studies. In the grey literature search, researchers also investigated organizations’ websites related to disaster management, such as the UNDP, World Bank, UNDRR, International Recovery Platform, PreventionWeb, WHO, and FEMA. (Fig.  1 )

Adapted from the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram from Page et al. [ 47 ].

PRISMA flow diagram of the scoping review process.

Data extraction

Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 show the characteristics of the articles and grey literature discussed in this study. General information (title, authors, publication year, study location, and key findings) regarding the questions addressed in this scoping review was extracted from the selected studies. Two independent reviewers extracted all relevant information and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

Data analysis and presentation

The documents were organized and analyzed by the researchers using the MAXQDA 2020 software. The data analysis strategy employed at this juncture was a thematic analysis approach. Thematic analysis is a valuable approach for elucidating experiences, thoughts, or behaviors within a data set. Additionally, researchers have proposed that thematic analysis is an optimal analytical method for novice qualitative researchers due to its transparent and straightforward procedures [ 28 , 29 ].

The search of the related electronic databases led to the identification of 845 articles. After removing the duplicates, 826 studies remained. The titles were screened, and 102 potentially eligible articles were selected. The simultaneous title and abstract review by two independent reviewers led to the selection of 80 articles that were uploaded to Rayyan software. Finally, 41 articles were selected for full-text review. The grey literature search identified 1015 documents, reports, manuals, and guidelines based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the study objectives, and 23 documents were selected for review.

Researchers have classified resources into five categories: articles, books, dissertations, policy documents, and reports. Studies have been conducted in different countries, half of which have been published in the last five years. The findings were categorized into five main themes, 20 subthemes, and 876 codes according to the research objectives and questions. The main themes, subthemes, and some related codes are presented in (Table  4 ).

This study provides a comprehensive perspective on post-disaster damage and loss assessment in the healthcare sector. To achieve a common understanding of post-disaster damage and loss assessment in the healthcare sector, the researchers first collected definitions and related concepts. Then, organized concepts related to damage and loss assessment teams, damage and loss assessment stages, data collection elements, assessment tools, and programs. The paper concludes with a discussion of the linkages between the healthcare sector and other sectors affected by disasters.

The health system comprises a wide range of organizations, institutions, groups, and individuals in governmental and nongovernmental sectors that policy, produce resources, finance, and provide health services to restore, promote, and maintain public health [ 30 ]. According to the WHO framework, the health system comprises six building blocks; service delivery, health workforce, information, medical products, vaccines and technologies, financing, leadership, and governance [ 31 , 32 ]. The realization and promotion of community health and fair cooperation in providing resources are crucial goals of the health system and are considered fundamental in most countries [ 33 ].

The continuity of services is critical in some businesses, such as those in the healthcare sector. However, these trends can be disrupted by disasters [ 34 ]. Achour et al. (2020) evaluated hospital performance after the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake in Japan. The occurrence of this event resulted in a disruption to the continuity of healthcare services. The investigation revealed that the primary causes of the disruption were damage to the infrastructure, including buildings, critical systems, and medical equipment. The results of the study indicated a 15% reduction in healthcare functionality in the affected regions [ 22 ]. In the study by Gufue et al. (2024), the direct economic loss to the health system caused by war-related looting or vandalism in the Tigray region of Northern Ethiopia was quantified in excess of $511 million. The assessment revealed that 80.6% of health posts, 73.6% of health centres, 80% of primary hospitals, 83.3% of general hospitals and two specialized hospitals were damaged and/or vandalized either fully or in part due to the war [ 35 ]. Therefore, a disaster recovery plan in the healthcare sector is essential for providing necessary measures and minimizing disaster consequences, And international frameworks such as Sendai play an important role in this regard and emphasize the need to develop and implement measures for disaster risk reduction and vulnerability [ 36 , 37 ].

For reconstruction, a reliable post-disaster damage and loss assessment method is required. The diversity of approaches and assessment-related outputs have led to various challenges. A significant obstacle to post-disaster damage and loss assessment is access to consistent, dependable, and detailed data on the impact of disasters. Establishing guidelines for reporting post-disaster damage and loss assessments is necessary to help national and regional institutions collect information in a structured manner [ 38 ]. Accurate data on disaster damage and losses are crucial for effective risk management, including loss accounting, disaster forensics, and risk analysis [ 39 ]. Assessment information is pivotal for effective policy development, resource allocation, and disaster preparedness [ 40 ]. We can improve disaster management and link disaster management science to disaster risk reduction policymaking by using these data [ 38 ].

In the Kermanshah Earthquake Lessons Learned study conducted by Khankeh et al. (2018) in Iran, it was recommended that a standard protocol be established for the receipt of reports from disaster locations in the initial days and weeks following an earthquake. Moreover, the establishment of rapid assessment teams at the local, regional, and national levels, with specific guidelines, was considered a crucial step [ 41 ]. The composition of the assessment team depends on the sector to be assessed. Healthcare sector assessment teams from different disciplines, including public health experts, physicians, epidemiologists, architects, civil engineers, and health economists, can estimate the value of production losses [ 18 , 31 , 42 ].

The post-disaster damage and loss assessment methodology includes pre-disaster baseline data collection, disaster effects, impact analysis, recovery needs estimation, and strategies that recommend appropriate interventions, implementation arrangements, and policies [ 43 ]. Documentation of damage and loss assessments should begin as soon as possible after a disaster [ 44 ]. A post-disaster damage and loss assessment report is a live document that is revised as better data become available [ 45 ]. Post-disaster damage and loss assessment reports should differ according to the assessment stage and type of disaster [ 46 ].

There is the fact that all societies and countries are susceptible to disasters. The primary responsibility for disaster and emergency management is affected by local communities and countries. After a disaster, the healthcare sector faces multiple hazards, limited resources for dealing with them, and high expectations regarding their performance. Multiple stakeholders engage in post-disaster damage and loss assessments and their interventions are guided by various damage and loss assessment methods. Such variations in techniques and related assessment outputs challenge the comparability across assessments and often present conflicting images. Despite the long history of reconstruction in Iran, there are numerous challenges in assessing post-disaster damage and loss. Therefore, there is a need to develop a set of post-disaster damage and loss assessment frameworks, including methodologies and guidelines, for the healthcare sector.

Limited scientific resources for disaster damage assessment in the healthcare sector, access to imperative content, and documentation in the country were limitations of this study. As with all scoping reviews, we did not formally evaluate the quality of the evidence, and because of the varying nature of the studies, only a limited synthesis of results was possible.

In light of the pivotal role of the post-disaster healthcare sector, it is of the utmost importance to develop appropriate post-disaster damage and loss assessment programme that can be adapted to different socio-cultural contexts and varying resources. To date, there have been few studies that have discussed the entities and components of disaster damage and loss assessment programme in the healthcare sector. It was, however, determined that identifying the entities and components of the healthcare sector’s post-disaster damage and loss assessment program was a necessary step for advancing the healthcare sector in Iran. This review offers a detailed examination of post-disaster damage and loss assessment programs within the healthcare sector.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Pourhosseini SS, Ardalan A, Mehrolhassani MH. Key aspects of Providing Healthcare Services in Disaster Response Stage. Iran J Public Health. 2015;44(1):111–8.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

UNISDR. Guidance Note on Recovery: Health. 2010. https://www.undrr.org/publication/guidance-note-recovery-health .

World Health Organization. Regional Office for the Eastern M. Implementation guide for health systems recovery in emergencies: transforming challenges into opportunities. Cairo2020. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/336472 .

Kimberley I, Shoaf SJR. Public Health Impact of Disasters: Australian Emergency Management Institute; 2000. https://search.informit.org/doi/ https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.369826620745919 .

Shahpari G, Ashena M, Shahpari M. How earthquakes can affect the Health Sector of the economy? Int J Economic Policy Emerg Economies. 2021;14(1):85–100.

Google Scholar  

Hatami H, Razavi M-MSM, Eftekhar Ardabili MD-MPHH, Majlesi MD-MPHF, Sayed Nozadi MD-MPHM, PhD M. J. Parizadeh. Textbook of Public Health 4th Edition: Arjmand publication; 2019. http://phs.sbmu.ac.ir/uploads/VOLUME_3.htm .

Ardagh MW, Richardson SK, Robinson V, Than M, Gee P, Henderson S, et al. The initial health-system response to the earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, in February, 2011. Lancet. 2012;379(9831):2109–15.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Irvin-Barnwell EA, Cruz M, Maniglier-Poulet C, Cabrera J, Rivera Diaz J, De La Cruz Perez R, et al. Evaluating disaster damages and operational status of Health-Care facilities during the emergency response phase of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. Disaster Med Pub Health Prep. 2020;14(1):80–8.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ochi S, Kato S, Kobayashi KI, Kanatani Y. The Great East Japan Earthquake: analyses of disaster impacts on Health Care clinics. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2018;12(3):291–5.

United Nations Development Programme - Headquarters, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. International Recovery Platform. Guidance notes on recovery: health - Supplementary edition2017.

Carabine E. Revitalising evidence-based policy for the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030: lessons from existing International Science partnerships. PLoS Curr. 2015;7.

Aitsi-Selmi A, Egawa S, Sasaki H, Wannous C, Murray V. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk reduction: renewing the global commitment to people’s resilience, Health, and well-being. Int J Disaster Risk Sci. 2015;6(2):164–76.

Article   Google Scholar  

Center ADR. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction; 2015.

United Nations. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015. https://www.undrr.org/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030 .

United Nations General Assembly. Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction (A/71/644). 2016.

Kligerman M, Barry M, Walmer D, Bendavid E. International aid and natural disasters: a pre- and post-earthquake longitudinal study of the healthcare infrastructure in Leogane, Haiti. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;92(2):448–53.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Fejerskov AM, Clausen ML, Seddig S. Humanitarian ignorance: towards a new paradigm of non-knowledge in digital humanitarianism. Disasters. 2024;48(2):e12609.

Jovel RJM. Mohinder. Damage, Loss, and Needs Assessment Guidance Notes: Volume 1. Design and Execution of Damage, Loss, and Needs Assessment: World Bank, Washington, DC; 2010. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/19047 .

Collaborative EP. Participatory planning guide for post-disaster reconstruction. EPC-Environmental Planning Collaborative, TCG International, LLC.; 2004. pp. 1–22.

Jovel JR, Mudahar MS. Conducting damage and loss assessments after disasters. The World Bank; 2010.

Chapin E, Daniels A, Elias R, Aspilcueta D, Doocy S. Impact of the 2007 Ica earthquake on health facilities and health service provision in southern Peru. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2009;24(4):326–32.

Achour N, Miyajima M. Post-earthquake hospital functionality evaluation: the case of Kumamoto Earthquake 2016. Earthq Spectra. 2020;36(4):1670–94.

Peters MD, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. 2020.

Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26.

Components and entities of post-disaster Damage and loss Assessment Programme in the health sector: a Scoping Review Protocol [Internet]. Center for Open Science. 2022. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/NJ3FK .

Miri J, Raeisi AR, Atighechian G, Seyedin H. Developing a conceptual model of post-disaster damage and loss assessment program in the Iranian health sector: a qualitative study protocol. BMJ Open. 2023;13(3):e065521.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. J Posit Psychol. 2017;12(3):297–8.

Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qualitative Methods. 2017;16(1):1609406917733847.

Mosadeghrad AM, Rahimi-Tabar P. Health system governance in Iran: a comparative study. Razi J Med Sci. 2019;26(9):10–28.

UNDP. GFDRR, EU. Post-disaster needs assessments guidelines: Volume B - Health. 2014.

Organization WH. Monitoring the building blocks of health systems: a handbook of indicators and their measurement strategies. World Health Organization; 2010.

Haghdoost A, Dehnavieh R, Mehrolhssan MH, Abolhallaje M, Fazaeli AA, Ramezanian M. Future financing scenarios for Iran’s Healthcare System. Arch Iran Med. 2022;25(2):85–90.

Al-Harbi E, Zaghloul SS, editors. Swot analysis on cisco ® high availability virtualization clusters disaster recovery plan. 3rd International Conference on Digital Information Processing and Communications, ICDIPC 2013; 2013: Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (SDIWC).

Gufue ZH, Haftu HK, Alemayehu Y, Tsegay EW, Mengesha MB, Dessalegn B. Damage to the public health system caused by war-related looting or vandalism in the Tigray region of Northern Ethiopia. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1271028.

De Groeve T, Poljansek K, Ehrlich D. Recording Disaster Losses. Recommendations for a European Research JRC Scientific and Policy reports Joint Research Centre, European Commission. 2013.

Reduction UNISfD. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk reduction 2015. United Nations; 2015.

Corbane C, De Groeve T, Ehrlich D, Poljansek K. A European Framework for Recording and sharing disaster damage and loss data. Isprs J Photogrammetry Remote Sens. 2015;XL–3/W3:277–83.

De Groeve T, Corbane C, Poljanšek K, Ehrlich D. Current status and best practices for disaster loss data recording in the EU Member States. Publications Office of the European Union; 2014.

Giri S, Risnes K, Uleberg O, Rogne T, Shrestha SK, Nygaard OP, et al. Impact of 2015 earthquakes on a local hospital in Nepal: a prospective hospital-based study. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(2):e0192076.

Khankeh H, Kolivand PH, Beyrami Jam M, Rajabi E. Kermanshah Health Care Services: a lesson learned from Iran’s recent earthquake. Health Emergencies Disasters Q. 2018;3(4):221–33.

World B, European U, United N. Gaza Rapid Damage and needs Assessment, June 2021. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2021.

Book   Google Scholar  

Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran UCTiI. Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA): Iran 2019 Floods in Lorestan, Khuzestan, and Golestan Provinces. 2019.

Boisvert S. Disaster recovery: mitigating loss through documentation. J Healthc Risk Manag. 2011;31(2):15–7.

Nepal government G, UNDP. Nepal Earthquake 2015: Post Disaster needs Assessment Vol. B: Sector Reports; 2015.

Institute NDR. Post-disaster Reconstruction and Rehabilitation National Plan. The National Disaster Management Organization; 2021.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to the Vice Chancellor for Research and Technology at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences for financial support.

This work was supported by the Vice-Chancellery of Research and Technology at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran [grant no. 3400686].

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Student Research Committee, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Golrokh Atighechian

Department of Health in Disaster and Emergencies, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Hesam Seyedin

Health Management and Economics Research Center, Department of Health Services Management, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Ahmad Reza Raeisi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J. Miri contributed to study design, title, abstract and full-text screening, data extraction, data analysis, writing the first draft of the manuscript, and subsequent revisions of the manuscript. A.R. Raeisi contributed to study design, literature search and project management. G. Atighechian was also involved in drafting the abstract, full-text screening, data extraction and writing the manuscript at all stages. H. Seyedin contributed to the study design and drafting of the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript and approved the final version for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmad Reza Raeisi .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran (IR.MUI.NUREMA.REC.1400.171).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Miri, J., Atighechian, G., Seyedin, H. et al. Components and entities of post-disaster damage and loss assessment program in healthcare sector: a scoping review. BMC Public Health 24 , 2417 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19523-5

Download citation

Received : 25 March 2024

Accepted : 18 July 2024

Published : 05 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19523-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Healthcare sector
• Health planning

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• General enquiries: [email protected]